ST Alpha - "They didn't call interference on Correa becuase he didn't interfere with the throw." (Reading a Post)

SlickerTalk
Search Archives
The Leaderboard
The FAQ

Down to Post

Backboards:

Posts: 160

In response to "That's the second blown call I know of that was upheld incorrectly in the first week. I expect better when they can review the calls. -- (edited)" by Krusty

They didn't call interference on Correa becuase he didn't interfere with the throw.

Posted by Will Hunting (aka JoeMetz) Apr 7 '16, 07:18

The rule doesn't deal with causality of a bad throw, it deals with interfering in the actual throw.

And the actual throw was bad. If it hits him; he's out.

Responses:

He was running out of the base line and blocking the throw. I agree that the Betances should have just hit him in the back with the ball. - Krusty Apr 7, 07:21 1
- I agree with krusty here, the rule needs tweaking. -- nm - groiny Apr 7, 07:22
yeah, that is an oversight on the rule, you do not generally try to not throw to the fielder. - groiny Apr 7, 07:19 6
- I think it was Seaver who's said he wished a runner would do that so he could fire a strike in his back. - Will Hunting Apr 7, 07:20 5
  - I'll agree with that. The rule needs to change if the umps aren't allowed call that interference. -- nm - Krusty Apr 7, 07:22
  - oh, middle infielders are tought to throw into the runners in those cases - groiny Apr 7, 07:21 3
    - Yup. I was told to hit the runner if he didn't move. It never happened though. They always moved. -- nm - Krusty Apr 7, 07:23 2
      - no one wants to take a fastball to the face. - groiny Apr 7, 07:24 1
        
        Right on both counts. -- nm - Krusty Apr 7, 07:37

Post a message top

They didn't call interference on Correa becuase he didn't interfere with the throw.

Replies are disabled on threads older than 7 days.