Question:
|
In a recent Colt League game, my catcher was forced to use a mitt that wasn't broken in. As a result, a pitch hit in the mitt and popped out, rolling in front of the plate. The batter swung and missed and his momentum carried him across home plate. The runner broke from first and as my catcher attempted to retrieve the ball, the batter ran into him, keeping him from getting the ball in time to make a throw to second.
The umpire said that because my catcher missed the ball, initiating everything that happened, there could be no interference call on the batter. He also stated that the rule says there can only be an interference call on the batter on a throw, when the rule clearly reads "a throw or attempted play by the catcher".
I felt that this was a misinterpretation of the rule, but didn't protest because the game didn't mean anything. In your opinion, and for future reference, should a protest on this play have been upheld? (Jackie from Virginia Beach, VA)
|