Skip to main content

Replies sorted oldest to newest

quote:
Originally posted by Matt13:
quote:
Originally posted by Jimmy03:
There is no B1 is no B1 at the time of this play.. There is R1 and B/R.


Under FED labeling, there is. They call a player that's a batter at the outset by B#.


You mean that goofy and unused by umpires nomenclature that actually refers to "R1 at third"?

Do you really use that nonsense?
OP as implied 2nd answer over the first.

Who's the two?

I'd ask the question like; When there is intentional int by a R with a force situation and less than 2 outs, the penalty is..
Cause as is; I'd need a 3rd choice.

A good hard hustle play in which R does indeed intentionally contact F4 yet within the rules.
R doesn't have to give up.
R1 intentionally slides or dives directly into R4's tag and knocks it out, could very well be nothing, no swat,swing,elbow, no kick, no mc, still intentional, could be nothing.
quote:
Originally posted by jjk:
OP as implied 2nd answer over the first.

Who's the two?

I'd ask the question like; When there is intentional int by a R with a force situation and less than 2 outs, the penalty is..
Cause as is; I'd need a 3rd choice.

A good hard hustle play in which R does indeed intentionally contact F4 yet within the rules.
R doesn't have to give up.
R1 intentionally slides or dives directly into R4's tag and knocks it out, could very well be nothing, no swat,swing,elbow, no kick, no mc, still intentional, could be nothing.


Nothing needs to be implied--the OP is clear. Intentionally knocking the ball out of a fielder's glove is always interference. You're adding things that not only aren't there, but are contrary to the facts of the play as stated.
Last edited by Matt13

Add Reply

×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×