Jump to content

7/7 - O's @ M's... Can we solve Bedard?


The Rick

Recommended Posts

I think it clearly interfered. It had a higher bounce until it hit the bat, where it then moved more quickly up the line, out of the reach of Wieters.

I think the ruling is that it wasn't intentional

There are two rulings there: 1) that it was unintentional and 2) regardless of intention, the bat did not interfere w/ the fielders' ability to make a play.

Regarding 2), I believe that means the bat can't actually interfere w/ the fielder; not that it can't touch the ball, if that make sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 473
  • Created
  • Last Reply
I think it clearly interfered. It had a higher bounce until it hit the bat, where it then moved more quickly up the line, out of the reach of Wieters.

That's affecting how the ball bounced. Might impact the play, but that's OK.

Not the same thing as interfering with what the fielder does.

Different issues...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hunter conveniently omitted that part.

He did that before on the Reimold at 3rd play... he reads part of the rule and then stops part way through it.

He needs to understand that you gotta read the whole rule, not just the part of it you like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's affecting how the ball bounced. Might impact the play, but that's OK.

Not the same thing as interfering with what the fielder does.

Different issues...

I guess what I meant was that I think Wieters makes the play if the ball doesn't hit the bat. Once it hit the bat, it scooted forward out of his reach. Not to mention that the bat was right in his path towards making the play. How is that NOT interfering with what the fielder does?

I think the umps decided that Cedeno did not intentionally throw the bat in order to affect the play.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...