Catcher's Obstruction (Interference)

[Rich]

Warren,

Steve is right. A hit-and-run play is when the runner runs on the pitch, like a steal attempt. On this you would award the advance base on catcher's interference.

You are ignoring the messenger regardless of the message.

Rich

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by Rich Fronheiser
Warren,

Steve is right. A hit-and-run play is when the runner runs on the pitch, like a steal attempt. On this you would award the advance base on catcher's interference.

You are ignoring the messenger regardless of the message.

Rich

*sigh* You too have missed the point, Rich. I said that a play where the runner did not make a legitimate attempt to advance until after the batter struck the pitch would certainly be a hit-and-run play. It would. That's not to say that hit-and-run play's cannot begin much earlier ie. after the pitching motion has commenced. But a play that began so late most certainly would be a hit-and-run play ... quite literally!

Freix just disagrees to be disagreeable. He is bound and determined to prove his hypothesis that I know nothing about baseball. Please don't become his unwitting dupe in that fruitless endeavour, Rich.

And, yes, you are correct ... I most certainly am "ignoring the messenger regardless of the message." Considering the foul suggestions he has previously made toward me, I feel well within my rights to do so. I would LOVE to have answered some of his more inane criticisms of my recent posts, but I have no intention of giving him that satisfaction.

Bottom line: Does it actually have to be a squeeze play or steal to award the advance base on CI? I agree the answer to that, at least on a practical level, is clearly "No". All that is required is for the runner to have made a legitimate attempt to advance some time before the ball is batted into play, IMHO.

Cheers

[Rich]

There's a lingo problem here.

Hit-and-run is a specific term used in the US where a runner will take off as if he's stealing. Most times, this runner does not have the speed to steal, so the batter has an obligation to swing at the pitch in order to put it into play.

Usually, the hit-and-run is designed to take advantage of the the hole created when F4 or F6 cover second.

It is REALLY run-and-hit, but that's not what we call it here. Saying hit-and-run and meaning hit-and-then-run would confuse most, if not all Americans that know baseball.

Rich

[Bfair]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Warren Willson

Freix just disagrees to be disagreeable. He is bound and determined to prove his hypothesis that I know nothing about baseball. Please don't become his unwitting dupe in that fruitless endeavour, Rich.

Warren, I sometimes disagree with posts that are inaccurate or misleading---yours included. Should I exclude yours due to your apparent paranoia?
While you accuse me of attacking you, it seems you are the one with the constant comments and inuendos toward me---as occurred here, Warren. You may need to look in the mirror to address the problem.

If my responses to your posts seem to you as more numerous than to others it's not because I seek that out, but perhaps because you may need to give more thought to what is being said before it is said. You also post more often than many others. Someone calling 100 games a year is twice as susceptible to error as someone calling 50 games a year.

I seldom make "me, too" posts, so better accuracy in your posting and elimination of misrepresenting people would resolve what you feel is a problem with someone else. The apparent problem, Warren, is moreso with your inaccurate posting, and the solution is well within your grasp if you care to address it.

And for the record, Warren, few baseball savvy people in the U.S. seeing a play where the runner stayed at his base until the ball is batted would refer to that play as "a hit-and-run play" as you did. I will stand by that statement. I understand things are sometimes addressed differently "down under", and that is why I qualified my exception within my original post. That may be a more common reference in your area.


Freix

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by Bfair
...blah, blah, blah ...


Freix

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by Rich Fronheiser
There's a lingo problem here.

Hit-and-run is a specific term used in the US where a runner will take off as if he's stealing. Most times, this runner does not have the speed to steal, so the batter has an obligation to swing at the pitch in order to put it into play.

Usually, the hit-and-run is designed to take advantage of the the hole created when F4 or F6 cover second.

It is REALLY run-and-hit, but that's not what we call it here. Saying hit-and-run and meaning hit-and-then-run would confuse most, if not all Americans that know baseball.

Rich

Oh, look this is getting really SILLY. I used the term "hit-and-run play" to distinguish what was described from a "steal". That's all. It quite literally WAS a "hit-and-run play", okay a "hit-and-then-run play", even though that doesn't jibe with the usual understanding of when such plays are initiated. I wasn't trying to DEFINE what is a "hit-and run play". I was trying to show what is NOT a "steal". *sigh*

I'm sorry if my pecadillo caused some confusion among some of you 'mericans. It really was such a small matter in relation to the original post as to be not worth raising UNLESS, like BFair, you are hunting for every "pin" on which to hang a poster! [pun intended] *Sheesh!*

Cheers