View Single Post
  #25 (permalink)  
Old Tue Oct 14, 2008, 12:37pm
IRISHMAFIA IRISHMAFIA is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 14,565
Quote:
Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve View Post
HTBT, absolutely. That's the "partial immunity". We don't seem to be disgreeing on the concept, just how we envision the described play in the OP.

When I think NFHS slowpitch, I think a fairly small field, at least so far as foul ball territory in the infield. I envision the overthrow of 1st traveling 10-15 feet beyond F3 when it hits the retired BR, who had little or no opportunity to react, and no reason to not head toward her dugout entrance after the fly is caught.

It seems like you envision a more open field with more foul ball territory, a retired batter-runner paying no attention and just wandering aimlessly in foul ball territory without paying attention, that had plenty of chance to avoid the overthrow, but didn't.

HTBT.
I don't think it is so much about avoiding being involved in the play as opposed to being cognizant to avoid being involved in the play. Everyone in playable territory whether defenders, runners, batters, ODB, retired runners, coaches and even players warming up in an open bull pen area inside the fences have an obligation to be aware of all play and their responsibilities. Obviously, this is something that is coached even with rec youth ball.

I think you need to be consistant. Like I said, if the player kept a fielder from getting the ball for a play, it is INT. If the errant throw is heading toward the fence/backstop where the catcher is waiting for ball and kicks off the retired player enroute to the dugout and goes through a dugout gate, you will have a serious discussion with at least one coach no matter how you rule. So, why leave the ball live?

Is my blocked ball ruling a survival call? I guess you could look at it that way, but it is supported by rule, not something I am ad libbing.
Reply With Quote