[tcannizzo]

Same ASA State that I wrote about yesterday.
None of these is particularly funny, but you don't see it that often:

a.) Visitors are up by 15 going into bottom of 3rd. Home scores 1.
On to the 4th. Visitors are up by 12 going into bottom of 4th. Home scores 1.
On to the 5th. Vis coach is a friend and I said, "You'd better hold 8!"
Vis won by 14.

b.) Top half of 1st inning takes 21 minutes with a total of 2 runs scored.
Bot 1st takes 16 minutes. 2 runs scored. Yep, 37 minutes for 4 runs. No time outs, no delays of any kind. 90 minute time limit expired in top 3 with home team ahead. 6-4. 2 1/2 innings!

c.) Foul tip hits catcher's mitt, pops up about 10 inches and C catches it. There was only one strike on B, so no great call to make here.

Oh, and Mike:
d.) R1 on 1B. B hits ground ball to P. Ball deflects off P's glove and right to F4. The moment after F4 fielded the deflected ball, R1 makes solid contact with F4. BU calls "DEAD BALL - R1 OUT" and B safe at 1B.

I was not in the game, but my other two partners were working it.
Neither coach was happy with the ultimate ruling.
> Def coach argues that it can't be INT because F4 had already fielded the ball and therefore was not hindered fielding a touched batted ball.
> Off coach argues that there would have been a tag-throw DP and that B should be Out also. BU said that he didn't think there would have been a DP.

Now, I don't know if I saw anything that the INT was really intentional, but I would have called INT also. And I would have ruled B out also because there was an "opportunity" to make a DP.

So, my question is why do we still have "intent" with certain forms of INT?