Quote:
Originally posted by Andy
Quote:
Originally posted by SC Ump
Quote:
Originally posted by AtlUmpSteve
Per the 2005 NFHS/Referee handout, they need to forget about a train wreck; it doesn't exist.
|
Thanks to everyone's responses.
Anyone know where I can get the text of this "no train wreck" handout?
|
The 2006 case book seems to contradict the "no train wreck" interpretation.
Case Play 8.4.3, situation E: A throw from F9 draws F2 into the basepath of the R1. The ball arrives just before R1 and F2 has it in her possession. Contact occurs between F2 and R1, F2 drops the ball and R1 scores. The contact is not malicious.
Ruling: There is no obstruction or interference. This is viewed simply as a collision. The run scores.
To my thinking - this means that a "train wreck" is a possibility.
|
A ball arriving before the runner and in fact F2 has possession before contact is not to my understanding a "train wreck" - which is more simultaneous. Once they have possession they can be in the basepath. I don't think that case play contradicts the rule as it should be written or the "no train wreck" idea.
That said, I do find it aggravating that the language was put back; the coaches will be liking seeing that back in there.
The first ump to have to tell a coach that the rule book is wrong should win a fruit basket or something.