Author Topic: Shouldn't someone on the Nats staff have known the interference rules?  (Read 2335 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Natsinpwc

  • Posts: 11528
The primary person at fault is the umpire. Clearly.  Secondarily, Weiters, and next Dusty.

The umpire should know the rule. Period.

Weiters, being a catcher, should know the rule.  And apparently, he did, but he was bullied by the umpire into questioning his belief of the rule.  Wieters should have told Dusty that he thought the umpire might be mistaken.  We don't know whether he did.

Dusty, as manager, should have a command of the rules but it is understandable that he might be a bit fuzzy on some of the more obscure rules. It is also understandable that  he believed that the umpire knew the rule.  If Wieters had mentioned to Dusty that he thought the umpire was wrong, then Dusty for sure should have asked for a rule review. But we don't know if Wieters mentioned it.

If Wieters did mention it to Dusty, then Dusty becomes the primary.  But we don't know.
Bench coach Speier; he was a totally empty uniform as best I can tell.  Got the job due to being buddies with Dusty and apparently being able to say "right boss."  I mean if bench coaches are not meant for these types of situations then what are they for?