Quote:
|
Originally Posted by CecilOne
I thoroughly agree with the above reponses and concept of the runner not evaporating. However, for a recent play ruling and at a recent clinic, I was told that is wrong; and it is INT if the runner prevents or disrupts the throw, regardless of how close to the base they were. Is this different in various rule sets?  |
Well, knowing this wasn't one of my clinics
, I will say such an interpretation is ludicrous. It actually FORCES the runner into a precarious, no-win situation. The runner should not have to think about anything other than advancing to the next base.
This was one of the more highly debated scenarios when ASA pulled the "intent" requirements from most rules involving INT. At one point, the discussion among some of us including a couple members of the NUS in the lobby in Colorado Springs host of the National Convention. It was an intense and interesting discussion, even to the point the fire alarm was activated
