Joined:
03/07/2002
Posts:
79,005
Likes:
22,767
Likely because Pete didn't argue heavily. He was likely fishing
Pete did not look insistent on TV. He looked like he presented a case, the umps talked about it, and Peter nicely went back to the dugout. THere was no challenge. He could have challenged it right?
Thread Replies (5)
When we argued for the “interference” based on a fake tag by the Duke 2B
-- HolidayInnHokie
Mar 13, 2026 at 10:47 PM ET
HolidayInnHokie
•
03/13/26 10:47 PM ET
If intentional that was a very tacky little league move!**
-- MDHokie79
Mar 14, 2026 at 09:04 AM ET
MDHokie79
•
03/14/26 09:04 AM ET
I understand the penalty for that is a warning to the fielder. While
-- nkhooch
Mar 14, 2026 at 02:44 AM ET
nkhooch
•
03/14/26 02:44 AM ET
I believe that is considered obstruction
-- VTChip
Mar 14, 2026 at 08:47 AM ET
VTChip
•
03/14/26 08:47 AM ET
Ok, then the info I got was incorrect. Thought it was a reliable source.
-- nkhooch
Mar 15, 2026 at 02:11 AM ET
nkhooch
•
03/15/26 02:11 AM ET
Likely because Pete didn't argue heavily. He was likely fishing
◄
-- VAHokie89
Mar 13, 2026 at 11:16 PM ET
VAHokie89
•
03/13/26 11:16 PM ET