Quote:
Originally Posted by teebob21
This is what we did. We ruled that the runner was guilty of INT, but was not yet a retired runner. She interfered during an active play on herself.
After the fact, I was not able to find a rule reference in the NCAA book that I liked for my own rule support. So I posted here.  |
Based on your previous posts, I'm having a hard time understanding how she had not been retired yet? From the description provided, I see a tag applied to the torso, then as the tag was being lifted off the torso, the arm grabs the glove and pulls the glove. The out was recorded as soon as she was tagged with the glove holding the ball.
I guess the bang-bang nature of the play can be used as a way to say she wasn't retired.
I think what is more important in that discussion is the nature of the actions by the batter-runner. Since it appears from your post she did not attempt to advance until the ball came loose as a result of the interference, there is no play to be made on he advancement, since the advancement didn't begin until the interference which kills the play.