Quote:
Originally Posted by topper
NCAA 2010-2011 Rules and Interpretations:
12.19.1.4 "Physical contact by the base runner with a fielder attempting to field a fair batted ball shall be interference, provided the fielder had a reasonable chance to make a play and was prevented from doing so."
Now you are aware of at least one. Honestly, why even post your statement at all if you don't know?
|
I don't buy this as a "requirement". This paragraph is offered as one of many examples of what could be interference on the runner. And the quantifier is that there must be a chance for the fielder to make a play.
Quote:
|
What explanation would be given to the DC to justify the INT ruling?
|
See above. In my judgment, if I believed the fielder was interfered with, that is what I will call. Simply because one did something which others may believe "could" have been INT, doesn't make it so.
In your play, maybe F6 does make the catch, but maybe the catch could have been more routine had their not been INT. But maybe she doesn't make the catch, but ends up trying to turn a deuce, but throws the ball into the stands and the BR is OBS by F3, and R1 plows over an unsuspecting F5 and is then picked up by the 3B coach and pushed towards home while F9 just went into labor and is down in RCF.......
T.W.P. We can all try to justify anything we want regardless of which way we prefer to slant it, but I believe we are better off as is. At least, until you can find the perfect, intelligent umpire that will not screw up a call. Like to admit it or not, there are umpires working all levels of ball that are somewhat clueless and misapply some of the simplest rules in the book. How in the world can a team expect any consistency from an umpire if so many "what if's" are available on what should be a simple play.
My vote goes for the ruling to remain an immediate dead ball.