Quote:
Originally posted by Cubbies87
But, this play had to do with safety, and malicious intent. As DownTownTonyBrown hit home on (excuse the pun), intentional collisions have no place in any non-proffesional ball. ... Those actions are not appropriate for a non-pro game, and call for some non-conventional methods of ruling the play. It's unfortunate that so many of us hold a game high enough to warrant such behavior.
|
While I applaud your attitude to safety, particularly for Junior ball, I don't see how the original situation could give rise to a judgement of "malicious intent". As I read the play presented, the following circumstances existed:
- The ball was batted,
- the fielder took an unusual course to intercept the ball, and
- the ball, fielder and runner all arrived together at the same point.
Unless I have misunderstood the situation, I'd normally rule that as INTERFERENCE under OBR 7.08(b) and 7.09(L). The only question, raised by the original poster, was whether or not to intervene in the BU's domain because there was some evidence of the fielder's INTENT to draw an interference call. The BU may have adjudged OBSTRUCTION, rather than INTERFERENCE, based on that 3rd party evidence of the fielder's INTENT.
Whatever the INTENT of the fielder to OBSTRUCT the runner, it is a fairly large jump to presume his deliberate act was also "malicious". I saw no suggestion of "malice" presented in the original post.
Cheers