|
Sat Jul 20, 2002, 10:45am
|
|||
|
|||
A runner on second with two out. Ball is hit to the SS who is close to the base line. The runner on second runs right in front of the SS. The SS picks the ball up but when coming up falls backwards, mostly from surprise because the runner was so close to him. I saw no contact, the runner was in a direct line to third and it was not intentional. NON CALL? Any observations?
__________________
cbestul 
|
|
Sat Jul 20, 2002, 03:34pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Depending upon the rules the game was played under, unless the runner verbalized in some manner or stopped in front of the SS in some way, Your call was probably correct. Interference does not have to be intentional to be call.
|
|
Sun Jul 21, 2002, 01:40pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
In OBR, it's certainly a non-call. Even in Fed, nothing in the play described makes me think there was any reason to call interference. I've seen it called on plays like that, but I think those calls were wrong.
__________________
greymule More whiskey—and fresh horses for my men! Roll Tide!
|
|
Sun Jul 21, 2002, 04:02pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
You will find some macho types who will insist that if you don't have the huevos to call this interference, based on the proximity or element of surprise or some thing else, you are doing a disservice to the game.
However, I agree with the others. From your description you have nothing here.
|
|
Mon Jul 22, 2002, 01:17am
|
|||
|
|||
|
If the fielder had stopped any charging of the grounder prior to his catching the ball, then that was his own choice and I'd have no interference. That sounds like the situation here.
If the fielder was in the act of charging the ball and he stopped at the last moment to avoid collision, then I'd likely call interference. I'll not make a fielder prove interference to me by making him get his a$$ runover. That does not sound like what you described here since he fielded the ball. Still, sounds like a HTBT............... Just my opinion, Freix
|
 |
| Bookmarks |
|
|
Linear Mode
