Thread: Now that
View Single Post
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Fri Feb 06, 2004, 05:43pm
IRISHMAFIA IRISHMAFIA is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 14,565
Quote:
Originally posted by greymule
It may well be that crashing a defensive player who is picking up the ball is no longer illegal. It might now be like crashing a fielder who is drawn into the runner by the throw. Maybe this is why ASA is emphasizing that the fielder should not be where he can be crashed unless he actually has possession of the ball.

If this is true, it would take a USC crash—not just a crash—for us to call the runner out.
The only thing which has changed is the elimination of the words "about to receive". No other parts of this or any other rule relating to this has changed, so why would anyone think to call it differently.

If a runner runs into a player not in possession of the ball, it is obstruction. If the runner "crashes" (assuming any crash to be intentional) into a player not in possession of the ball, it is USC.

Now, I have not seen this year's book yet (picking them up tonight), so I don't know if the NUS made a connection on the USC and "out" call. I know it wasn't discussed in any of the open committee meeting in Orlando. And now that Henry Pollard has likely moved on, I don't know how this will be interpreted.

__________________
The bat issue in softball is as much about liability, insurance and litigation as it is about competition, inflated egos and softball.
Reply With Quote