View Single Post
  #22 (permalink)  
Old Wed Apr 10, 2013, 12:03pm
IRISHMAFIA IRISHMAFIA is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 14,565
Quote:
Originally Posted by MD Longhorn View Post
provided the fielder had a reasonable chance to make a play and was
prevented from doing so.

I agree that what you said and "provided the fielder had a reasonable chance to make a play" are equivalent. But if that is what the rulesmaker's intent was they would not have added, "and was prevented from doing so".
A little clearer.

I used to play with a SS that dove for anything. I mean anything! 20' away when he hit the ground, but he dove for the ball. He was attempting to make a play, but he had no shot at doing so. If a runner was going from 2B to 3B and this guy dove for a ball up the middle that there was no chance to make a play and flew into that runner, I'm not calling INT.

To me, that is how that rule reads. Granted, it may not be well written, but that is how this hi skuel gratiate reads it.
__________________
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