Ball hits Bat

[IRISHMAFIA]

Cannot find on-line, but from today's print edition of the USAToday, PU John Hirschbeck said he would have called Brandon "Phillips out for veering far out of the baseline had Ruiz failed to throw him out."

"I saw the ball roll up and catch the bat," Hirschbeck said. "Then I saw (Phillips) out of the lane the last 45 feet to first base. I was going to call out Phillips for batter-runner interference."

Okay, now we are back to saying the wrong thing. Here is an MLB umpire stating that simply because a BR is out of the lane, he was going to call him out.

No mention of interferring with Howard receiving the ball at 1B or the ball itself.

Not only that, but if there was INT, why wait to see the result of the play? FTM, why would a MLB umpire comment on an INT call on a possible play that did not exist?

[CecilOne]

I also noticed where the runner was, part of how great Ruiz did was throwing over the runner w/o throwing over Howard.

I would give the ump the benefit of the doubt on a newspaper quote and assume the implication that he know there has to actually be a hindrance, like Howard not being able to catch the ball because of the runner in the way.

Of course, we don't need misstatements of the rules to further mislead the public and players; but that would mean shutting down all sports reporters and commentators.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

I also noticed where the runner was, part of how great Ruiz did was throwing over the runner w/o throwing over Howard.

I would give the ump the benefit of the doubt on a newspaper quote and assume the implication that he know there has to actually be a hindrance, like Howard not being able to catch the ball because of the runner in the way.

But why make any statement at all? We are talking about a professional sports official in MLB. He basically admitted he either failed to do his job or didn't have the nerve to make the call, but had no problem bragging about it after the fact. We really don't know since the call wasn't made when the INT occurred.

Of course, we don't need misstatements of the rules to further mislead the public and players; but that would mean shutting down all sports reporters and commentators.

And you point is?

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

But why make any statement at all? We are talking about a professional sports official in MLB. He basically admitted he either failed to do his job or didn't have the nerve to make the call, but had no problem bragging about it after the fact. We really don't know since the call wasn't made when the INT occurred.

Of course he should not have said anything, even at our level, walk away from reporters (or run if it's the CW).

But, just pointing out that a reporter comment or apparent quote can't be assumed to be the whole explanation.

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

And you point is?

Second typo today, is fo supposed to be of or for? Anyway, I thought we agree that TH should not ever explain rules.