|
Do you agree with this non-call?
14U tournament, R1 on 2B, ball hit on ground towards F6. Happened twice in same game, to same F6. On one play the ball hit and skidded towards 2B; the other hit was well to the left of F6.
In one case she turned left and stopped; on the second she turned and took a small step and stopped. R1 ran behind F6 and scored.
Based on the relationship of F6, the ball path, and R1, one could assume that F6 stopped because R1 was coming right at her, taking away F6’s route to the ball. Later F6 told me that she could not get to the ball because R1 was in her way.
I made no call, and of course took a lot of flack from the D Coach who wanted interference.
My position was that I could not look into F6’s mind to determine why she chose not to move to field the ball. She may have felt she would collide with R1, or she may have felt she couldn’t get to the ball anyway, or she may have simply froze. I required that she at least make an attempt to go to the ball and pull off at the last second or maybe even have some contact.
In my mind, I felt – with 90% certainty – that F6 stopped because R1 was in her way. But, without overt action of her part, I would not give her the benefit of the 10% doubt.
Agree? Or would you have called interference?
WMB
|