Suggested Reading Material

[TussAgee11]

If a coach is standing there, staring at his runner coming into third, tells him to get down and gets low, F5 misses the throw and it hits the coaches batting helmet and ricochets into DBT, are you still calling INT?

I'm thinking that the OP got deleted for a reason, so I'm going to back out of this windstorm. Unless of course you subpoena me

[SAump]

Originally Posted by TussAgee11

If a coach is standing there, staring at his runner coming into third, tells him to get down and gets low, F5 misses the throw and it hits the coaches batting helmet and ricochets into DBT, are you still calling INT?

I'm thinking that the OP got deleted for a reason, so I'm going to back out of this windstorm. Unless of course you subpoena me

Sorry try again, the above ruling is textbook definition of 3.17 and 5.08 A {accidental}. BTW you honor, let it be noted that I supplied both of those rulings for INTERFERENCE.

I'll say it again for everyone. It looks good on paper but it falls apart in a game. The rule of thumb covers 100 out of 100 possibilities. But the TWP in the OP is supported by rule, like it or not, try to change it or not.

C&T do not support the same call at 2B or HP. I have already explained this interpretation. RULE 3.17 allow RUNNERS and BASE COACHES protection on the base line. Do not abuse it. In fact, stop abusing the very definition, rule 3.15, rule 7.08b, rule 7.09d and rule 7.11. I tire of defending INFINTY.

How many times are you going to change the rationale for no interference without an ounce of integrity, a pound of authoritative opinion, or ton of reality? I agree with SLAS here. BUY a CLUE!

{Edit, see page 2 of this thread to see a new message to clear up possible misunderstanding}.
Apologies to TussAgee11.

[SAump]

Originally Posted by TussAgee11

If a coach is standing there, staring at his runner coming into third, tells him to get down and gets low, F5 misses the throw and it hits the coaches batting helmet and ricochets into DBT, are you still calling INT?

I'm thinking that the OP got deleted for a reason, so I'm going to back out of this windstorm. Unless of course you subpoena me

Take your play and have the coach hit the ground and hit by the throw. Rule 5.08 and 3.17 support your ruling, no interference if you feel no possibility to blatantly avoid the contact. Correct.

The caseplay CC6 provides is different than yours. That is only what I was trying to point out. Rule 5.08 and 3.17 support his ruling, interference. Correct.

Now can anyone establish or provide information to establish a more appropriate call? My own point is, here 3.17 and 5.08 apply. Neither rule was discussed in the deleted thread. You guys held back from the discussion when asked to explain why no interference was the more appropriate call. NOT one person said anything to support their call using 3.17 or 5.08. No one would venture out on that limb, so I have interference until I hear otherwise from an authoritative opinion or caseplay. The last I heard, the ODH is NOT protected by rule 5.08 (3.17).

[jdmara]

Humor me for a moment and recap the EXACT details of the OP