![]() |
|
|
|||
I agree play is dead if the call is interference with the exception you mentioned. My point is that while contact is most likely going to lead to a call of interference, the contact by itself doesn't necessarily result in a call of interference.
What would be the call in the following situation: Runners on 1st and 2nd, no outs. Batter hits a ground ball to the shortstop who is setup to field the ball when the runner from 2nd base trips over him in an attempt to avoid interfering with him prior to the ball arriving (interpret as unintentional, not willful or deliberate contact intended to break up a double play). The shortstop is still able to field the ball, tag the runner that is laying on the ground and still throw to first to such that the BR is also out.
__________________
My job is a decision-making job, and as a result, I make a lot of decisions." --George W. Bush |
|
|||
Quote:
__________________
"I don't think I'm very happy. I always fall asleep to the sound of my own screams...and then I always get woken up to the sound of my own screams. Do you think I'm unhappy?" |
|
|||
Quote:
|
|
|||
I'm going to concede defeat on this one and appreciate you guys for pushing me to think about this and check into it some more.
I talked with a couple of guys that I've worked with and they also helped set me on the right path along with you guys. They did acknowledge that they've also heard the same idea that contact with the fielder is only interference if it actually causes the fielder to not be able to make they play, but explained to me why contact is sufficient to call interference. They did agree that my example feels like a hole in the rule, but reminded me that the quality of play at our level (HS/MS age and below) decreases the likelihood of the defender being contacted and still being able to complete the double play. Conversely, at higher levels there is a greater expectation that runners be able to avoid contact with the fielder and thus the likelihood of determining there was intent goes up as well. All that said, I still feel like the OBR language could be cleaned up. Ironically, one of the points made that helped change my view on this created an interesting discussion about the situation I used in which F3 is interfered with by the runner at 1B on a fly ball that ultimately drifts out of play. One of my colleagues pointed me to the language in 6.01(a10) that says "it is interference by a batter or runner when: he fails to avoid a field who is attempting to field a batted ball...". I'm not arguing that we should start calling outs for interference if the ball ends up out of play, but a literal interpretation of the rule as written suggests that as long as F3 was attempting to make a play, the contact by the runner qualifies as interference. I realize this isn't the intent of the rule but it was an interesting discussion. Regardless of all of that, thank you guys for preventing me from making a potential mistake. I've been fortunate enough that all of my interference calls have been clear-cut, routine situations that aren't of the nature I described.
__________________
My job is a decision-making job, and as a result, I make a lot of decisions." --George W. Bush |
|
|||
Quote:
Evans identified 234 or some such number of errors and mis-statements in OBR. |
|
|||
What if....
Let's say that just like in the OP the pop up is toward the 1st base line and fair, but it is F2 that the BR gets tangled with and it is just a short distance from home plate. BR is essentially just taking off and so is F2. F2 still has time to make the play, it would seem, but the ball pops out of his mitt. F2 could have come out towards the mound (in the way we clear the catcher for a ground out w/ bases empty), but his first move is towards 1st base, just as the BR's first move is towards first base. Do any of you see it differently in this example?
|
|
|||
Quote:
|
|
|||
Quote:
Tongue in cheek response... If it's the home team on offense, you have unintentional interference on R2, the rule grabs R2 on the interference and awards BR first and R1 advances to second due to the award to the BR. If it's the visiting team on offense, it's intentional, and the rule gets R2 on interference, R1 for a second out (because R2 was clearly trying to break up the double play), and the BR gets first base (only because the rule won't let me grab all three). I don't like the flexibility of intentional/unintentional rules for the reasons listed in my sarcastic answer...it would be difficult for a team to contest such a ruling after the fact if it drew an argument. In my sole opinion, the penalty should be maximized at all times so the runners always can be assumed to have done everything they could to avoid the contact in the first place. |
![]() |
Bookmarks |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Incidental contact? | CoachP | Basketball | 4 | Mon Jan 21, 2008 01:13pm |
Incidental contact | MPLAHE | Basketball | 40 | Wed Aug 30, 2006 09:29pm |
Incidental Contact?? | Just Curious | Softball | 3 | Tue Apr 26, 2005 02:30am |
Incidental contact | stewcall | Basketball | 19 | Fri Feb 07, 2003 12:20pm |
Incidental contact? | Paul LeBoutillier | Basketball | 9 | Tue Jan 21, 2003 09:27am |