Quote:
Originally posted by ThurgreedMarshall
Oh, stop it. He couldn't locate his pitches or hit 90 with any regularity in Game 1. He beat us last night. He pitched well.
Now, don't get me wrong. I think he played his injury up for all it was worth last night, limping around like a gimp (Give me a break -- you're throwing 94 mph. You can walk). But now, no one in Boston will talk about his decision to pitch in Game 1. They'll be too busy holding him above their shoulders for pulling a Willis Reed in Game 6.
TM
|
I thought the rule on interference was that the batter and the interfering running (in this case one and the same) are out and no player can advance on the play. So I was wondering why the opposite: why did the run score?
In the absence of a rule like that, there's an incentive to try to interfere when you're going to be out otherwise. It could happen all the time, and baseball could end up like hockey.
