View Single Post
  #39 (permalink)  
Old Fri Jan 09, 2015, 06:09pm
AtlUmpSteve AtlUmpSteve is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Woodstock, GA; Atlanta area
Posts: 2,822
Quote:
Originally Posted by MD Longhorn View Post
The rule regarding a batted ball says, clearly ... if the runner is hit by the ball (blah blah blah) - not if the runner interferes with the ball. It's worded entirely differently ... on purpose. If they wanted these two situations to be analogous, they rule we are discussing would say, "if B/R is hit by the ball" and not "if B/R interferes with ..."
Yes; and no.

Remember (or be advised if you didn't know) that I used to be one of "they", a member of the ASA Rules Committee; in the years interference rules were revised to mostly eliminate intent. And this was part of that batch.

Philosophically, the committee discussed interference as fitting different niches in the accountability scale. The philosophy was also based on equity, not giving either offense or defense an unfair advantage in any case.

At one end, there are the rules where the offense just must avoid at all costs, and is fully accountable; avoid a fielder fielding a batted ball, avoid an untouched batted ball don't hit the ball with a dicarded bat, those cases where the offense "actively" interferes. At the far end, don't make the offense accountable for something the defense fully controls; the opportunity for a defender to try to implement kickball rules and just hit the runner with a throw when the runner has no control over the throw (and generally no opportunity to avoid it if it is thrown at them).

Then there is the middle ground; the "wreck" near the plate when BR exits and F2 is chasing a bunt (one where no one is wrong), and this, where you COULD see both sides not being in the wrong and neither fully accountable. Not the batted ball end versus the thrown ball end of that spectrum.

Back to my original and not very definitive post in this thread. The defense must be given an opportunity to make a "play", and the offense cannot "interfere" with that opportunity. This isn't black and white absolute, it's JUDGEMENT, it's why we get paid the big bucks. Know the intent of equity and creating the fairest and most even possible balance between the offense and defense.

Nope, there isn't ONE absolute answer. If you need one, try a different game.
__________________
Steve
ASA/ISF/NCAA/NFHS/PGF
Reply With Quote