View Single Post
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Fri Oct 02, 2009, 07:06am
IRISHMAFIA IRISHMAFIA is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 14,565
Quote:
Originally Posted by wadeintothem View Post
Those rules infer...

Common sense also infers, so an invocation of Rule 10 based on inference could also work..

But IMO, that rule does not address this situation.

That rule also states a strike is called.. for the sake of argument, the batter did not ever swing at the pitch.
WTF are you talking about? Not only does the cited rule NOT have anything to do with ruling a strike, it addresses the situation noted.

Quote:
A thought..

If the runners take off, do you then have interference? At the point an interference of the defense was created.
That has already been addressed. If the runners were stealing on the play, INT is the call. If not, it was a dead ball at the time of contact, so no further action is allowed.

Quote:
I do agree dead ball to be the easiest path out of this play and what I would likely do if I had too...
Now, that was on point that was not addressed.

Either you are on something a little stronger than Benedryl or you are downwind of the burning of the evidence from that pot farm discovered near Crystal Cave.
__________________
The bat issue in softball is as much about liability, insurance and litigation as it is about competition, inflated egos and softball.
Reply With Quote