View Single Post
  #22 (permalink)  
Old Sun Apr 12, 2009, 08:21pm
AtlUmpSteve AtlUmpSteve is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Woodstock, GA; Atlanta area
Posts: 2,822
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dakota View Post
I understand; and I wasn't necessarily supporting INT in the OP, either; it was more I was objecting to the statements that there must be a play (as in the ASA definition, an attempt to retire a runner). Even when the runner will be safe, the fielder still is protected if the fielder is fielding the batted ball. Futile attempts to chase a batted ball are not attempts to field; I agree it is a judgment.
Just wondering; how do you reconcile that approach (that there is interference with fielding a batted ball without a play) with the definition of interference, which requires that there be a play? Is there any other case or circumstance where you think interference can happen without a "play"?
__________________
Steve
ASA/ISF/NCAA/NFHS/PGF
Reply With Quote