Quote:
Originally Posted by David Emerling
I have a copy of the 2006 BRD and play 171-320 is not only a stark example of the interpretation of the rule - but, in my opinion, it goes a bit overboard.
Play 171-320: FED only. Bases loaded: B1 grounds to F4, who fields the ball and throws to F6 to start the double play. F6 catches the throw and forces out R1 as F6 crosses the bag to the right field side. F6 now throws to first as retired R1 begins his slide into second. Retired R1's slide is clearly to the right side of the bag (the side F6 is now on). R1 is sliding towards F6, but he misses the shortstop by a foot or two as F6 keeps moving after the throw. F6's throw is in time to retire BR at 1B; meanwhile, R3 scores. Ruling: Even though it is obvious the runner is illegally sliding toward the fielder, it is not interference. The ball remains alive: two out, R3 in, R2 on third.
|
One of the NFHS rules guys (I forget who) opined on this play several years ago on one of the internet forums and issued the opinion that "no contact = no interference."
Frankly, I think he's wrong.
If the slide is through the bag, then contact is needed. If the slide is toward the fielder, then contact is not needed. That's how I read 2-Slide-Illegal (whatever the section number is). The words "and makes contact" are in some of the specific rules, but not in the "fails to slide directly toward the bag" rule.
IT's been noted many, mnay times before, but FED hasn't changes the ruling.