Quote:
|
Originally Posted by rodan55
ASA states a runner cannot hinder a defensive player from making a play. This includes when the ball has already been touched.
|
ASA 8-4.F completely contradicts your statement. The runner is not out after a ball has been touched, unless contact with fielder or ball is intentional. That is black letter law. 8.7-J(1) does not specifically contradict that statement, and 8.7-J(4) agrees with it. POE 33-A.1(b) also requires intentional interference after a deflected ball, and does
NOT require or infer that it be an
OTHER defensive player, just
ANY defensive player. Relative to ASA, I submit there is absolutely no basis to accept "step and reach"; there is black letter "after touched", period.
At the same time, ASA is the only ruleset that puts both possible forms of interference in one rule; contact with the ball after touched, and contact with the fielder after touched. NFHS only addresses specifically contact with the ball; and it protects the runner, who is not out unless contact is intentional. Without addressing the fielder specificly, how can you put a greater burden on the runner if the fielder runs into them after changing direction because the fielder missed the ball? The rule intent seems clear; protect the fielder first; then when the fielder loses that opportunity, protect the runner. Not as clear as ASA, but I would rule the same until I saw black letter ruling that contradicts; and I don't see that.
Finally, to Dakota. I agree that unavoidable and intentional are not synonymous in grammer. In this instance, I would state absolutely that if it unavoidable, it is unintentional. If it is avoidable, but then not avoided, I judge that failure to avoid an act of intent. I think we are picking at nits on this one (while admittedly, relative to NFHS, I find no option but to pick at nits with the unstated ruling).