|
Would you feel justified in taking one Ruling Body's interpretations (ie. ASA) and applying it in a game ruled by another organization (ie. NFHS) if the other does not have a clear interpretation. My question concerns interference on a batted ball vs interference on a deflected batted ball.
Situation: Saturday's H.S. District Semi-Final game. R1 on 2B, hot shot at F1, ball off her glove and rolls behind her. F6 goes for deflected ball and collides with R1 going to 3B. I quickly ruled out interference, thought about obstruction, and then decided to let it go. Defensive coach went ballistic, wanted to know why I wouldn't call interference. I replied that "on any initial hit I would have interference if the fielder was denied the opportunity to make a play. But on a deflected ball I would only have interference if the fielder was denied the opportunity to make an out. In my judgement his player has no chance to throw the B-R out; she would have reached 1B before F6 even had the ball.
This was based on using ASA POE 32 which differentiates between making a play, and making an out. NFHS rules only consider interference with a fielder attempting to field a batted ball and the case book has no offering.
Do you agree with my call? Or, because it was an NFHS game and it was a batted ball (deflected or not) that interference should have been called?
WMB
BTW - Same team on defense, top of the 7th, protecting a 4 run lead, R1 on 2B, R2 on 1B, Batter hits soft blooper just over 2B. F6 playing in, sprints out towards ball and collides with R1. "Dead ball, runner out for interference!" This time no one complained. But as we headed off the field, PU said that he wasn't sure about the call; he didn't think F6 had a chance to catch the ball. Told him it didn't matter, she didn't have a chance to make a play. Not for me to judge whether or not she coulda, woulda, shoulda caught the ball.
|