Quote:
|
Originally Posted by debeau
Yep good theory question and I just had it at an ISF accreditation as my case play .
My answer was no interference play on could even have OBST.
Merle Butler who took the clinic said I was wrong .
Everyone at the clinic said I was wrong .
So as didnt want to embarrass Merle I asked him on his own.
Answer : Dead ball get the runner to return to 3rd and the batter to bat again .
I then asked the other examiner .
Wait until ball rolls fair then kill it and and have an out for Int
Then another examiner .
Dead ball runner out batter to 1st .
Other answers wer
Dead ball runner out batter bats on .
ISF mirrors ASA in the INTF rule but I really would like to know what to do the answer
|
Yep youre in a tough spot lol. Little bit more important for you to get it right.
I think the answer lies in the squeeze play which will illustrate why the intent of this rule would necessitate INT.
Slow spinning bunt 4 ft up the line on foul side but with the obvious motion that its going fair.. it's moving to fair territor quickly as a matter of fact.
Hard charging R1 from 3B -- F2 is reaching down to touch the ball foul.. runner runs through the catcher knocking the catcher over who misses touching the ball. The ball settles fair as it was obviously going to.
Nothing blatant for USC.. the decision is
Score the run or INT.
Those that score the run dont understand the intent of INT nor acknowledge that making a play on a otherwise fair ball to make it foul is a legit defensive play worthy of the protections of the intent of the rule.
To answer your other post.. a ball that settles fair before 3B is fair.
So a ball on the foul side that settles fair is fair.
And defensive players making a play on that ball are entitled to the protections of INT.