Quote:
Originally posted by IRISHMAFIA
Speaking ASA
Tie ball game with 2 outs UNLESS the umpire's rule that F3's intention was to confuse the defense. ... The rule says that a runner continuing to run MAY be considered a form of interference, didn't say the umpire MUST rule interference.
F9 never left playable territory while in possession of the ball according to the scenario. However, even if F9 held the ball, a collapsed fence is NOT considered DBT. For the ball to be ruled dead at this point, F9 would have had to have an entire part of her body (foot, hand, shoulder, umpire's descretion) completely off the collapsed fence and in DBT for the umpire to rule the ball dead.
|
Mike,
I agree wrt the fence. I think it is POE 20 that clarifies that a collapsed fence is still in LBT.
Wrt the interference, I
mostly agree - it is left to umpire judgment whether to call interference, since the rule does say
may and not
must.
My small disagreement is that judging
intent is not the only thing that can result in an interference call. Stupid base running can also result in the interference call, IMO, since the rule does not require intent in drawing the throw. It says
A runner continuing to run and drawing a throw may be ... It doesn't say "continuing to run
to draw a throw" - just that the running
did draw a throw.
In the play described, the runner should have known she was out, but all of the fielders may not have known, and assuming the defense had a play on R1 going home, but instead went for the easier "out" on R3. I would call this interference.
If you don't call the interference, then the home team wins - game over - since 2 runs scored (R1 and R2) - right?
[Edited by Dakota on Nov 20th, 2001 at 11:37 AM]