Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Skahtboi
If, in your judgement, you felt that F6 had no play on the ball because of its erratic bounce, then you can't have interference.
|
Agreed. But I think that the ball was close enough to be considered playable, given the talent level on the field.
Quote:
|
If you felt that she could have had a play on the ball had it not been for the runner, then you would.
|
Had there not been a runner on, I don't question that F6 would have gone for the ball, maybe in 2 out of 3 caught it or at least knocked it down. Thus I think that she didn't go because of the presence of R2.
My problem is that she didn't even attempt to move towards the ball. Not even a baby step (though she did turn to her left). IF she had taken a step, and then stopped I would have called interference. But in lieu of any physical reaction, I feel that I am guessing that she stopped because of R2. Thus I would be guessing an out if I called interference.
I am not trying to justify my calls; I made them and will stick with it. But I am wondering how others feel. The basic question is, "If there is a runner between a fielder and the path of the ball, is that in itself itself justification for interference, even if the defender does not (physically) show you that she wanted to move towards the ball?
WMB