Thread: Your call?
View Single Post
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Sat Mar 08, 2008, 02:09pm
GarthB GarthB is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Spokane, WA
Posts: 4,222
Quote:
Originally Posted by rngrck
Train wreck, thank you. This is NFHS.


Train wreck, thank you. This NFHS. I had nothing on the play. Coach wanted runner interference. F1 was reaching into the baseline to try and catch the ball. Never did.
Be careful. While interference was most likley not really an option, by rule, obstruction may have been. A collision four feet from the plate with a fielder without possession of the ball?

Consider this NHFS: "The second situation is one in which the fielder is in the base path without the ball, but the ball is in motion and a play is probable. Previously, this action would have been legal in all circumstances. Under the new rule this action is only legal if the fielder provides the runner access to the base."

The so-called train wreck in the POE according what we received from FED must include both players and the ball arriving at the same time so that the fielder has possession of the ball at the time of collision. A fielder cannot use a bad throw or a bad fielding attempt for an excuse for a "train wreck."
__________________
GB

Last edited by GarthB; Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 02:21pm.
Reply With Quote