Quote:
|
Originally Posted by CO ump
This statement doesn't jive with the 5 conditions stated later in the rule.
For me it's judgement and not an absolute.
By rule R1 can legally slide over top of the base and make contact legally. He can also do a pop up slide and if not malicious make pretty strong contact over the base and be legal.
So same sitch as OP but R1 makes legal but hard slide over bag takes out the legs of F4 and you got nothing. But you're saying incidental contact in the very same spot above the base shoulder to shoulder and much less dangerous for F4 would be a FPSR violation?
Without arguing the letter of the law, I think intent of the law needs to be taken into consideration and good judgement on part of the arbiters of the game needs to be excersized.
|
All calls of interference are judgment, so the judgment angle is chimera. The rule is clear, if you don't slide or avoid and you make contact or alter the play, you are guilty of interference. So in all the scenarios you list as more dangerous are not relevant to this discussion because the runner did not violate the rule. Furthermore, I did not indicate in any way, shape, or form that I believed this violation to be more or, for that matter, less dangerous than the other scenarios that you give. The intent of the law need not be inferred here, we know it because it is written down. He didn't slide or avoid and he made contact a clear violation of the rule. The runner very easily could have avoided putting the umpire in a jackpot by sliding, he chose not to so he created the problem. And as stated above, the coach said nothing.
Also, in nearly every response I have given, I have included the caveat a discussion of whether to pass on such a call is fruitful, but the runner
has committed interference in this scenario. I think an interference call here is a much easier sale than a pass.