![]() |
|
|||
Wrong
Quote:
Also your statement that the ball has to come in contact with the fielder is wrong. Did you mean runner? In either case, contact is not required for interference. Check out the definition. The last sentence says...."Contact is not necessary". We all agree that the batter-runner should run inside the lane. We also all agree that simply running outside the lane is not enough for interference. Where we differ is on what action on the part of the batter-runner constitutes interference. We can't give the batter-runner a pass simply because there was no contact. You actually want the catcher to throw and hit the runner? Why? Contact is not necessary. Read the definition. I care more for the safety of the players than to require the catcher to throw and hit the runner. The rule does not require contact, so why do you? No, catchers wont throw rough just to get interference. I'm smart enough to know the difference. Your way, a runner gets beaned. My way, the catcher makes a throw around the runner and if its a close play and I believe the batter-runner hindered the catcher to the point that the runner would have been out otherwise, we have interference and an out.
__________________
Gwinnett Umpires Association Multicounty Softball Association Multicounty Basketball Officials Association |
Bookmarks |
|
|