Quote:
Originally posted by Dakota
[B
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. [/B]
|
This is why I would like to have witnessed the call. If there was a call, maybe it was weak and not sold. You know how loud it gets when things begin happening in a JO game d:-)
The reason I mentioned intent was because the first sentence of the rule being quoted (8.8.P) states, "When, after being put out or scoring, a runner intentionally interferes with a defensive player's opportunity to make a play on another runner."
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that is THE call and no other possibility exist, but lacking further details, it could have been the proper ruling.