The Official Forum - Did the rule book editors forget this one?

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)

- Softball (https://forum.officiating.com/softball/)

- - Did the rule book editors forget this one? (https://forum.officiating.com/softball/13870-did-rule-book-editors-forget-one.html)

Quote:

Originally posted by wadeintothem

For the record, I wholeheartedly agree with this INT rule and have enforced it a few times this year. If it's an oversight, the only way I would stop enforcing it as it's written is to have ASA put out a clarification. I dont believe in running over catchers/fielders without sliding. Not in amateur and especially youth ball for sure.
[Edited by wadeintothem on May 28th, 2004 at 10:40 AM]

ASA rule citation, please? Show me where the rule supports an inteference call.

Thanks,

Its the rule we are discussing on this thread which was brought over from the ezteams discussion 8.7.Q. - I think it clearly and directly applies to this play as written based on the scenario as it was presented (I agree there are a few holes in the scenario .. but I am keying in on the runner was partially to blame for the dropped ball).

Runner partially to blame for drop + crash which overules the OBS = 8.7.Q. at a minimum... could be ejection as well under 8.7.Q. (not USC).

i would definately appreciate it if you would explain to me why you are dismissing 8.7.Q. as applicable to this play. I really do not grasp it and there must be a reason. Sometimes just telling me something without explaining reasoning just bounces off my thick head.

I call a game tonight - and I would call the runner out for INT if I saw this, there is no doubt in my mind.. maybe ejection but for sure - runner is out... so it's important (to me anyway) that I understand why it would not apply.

[Edited by wadeintothem on May 28th, 2004 at 12:22 PM]

Maybe I'm tripping over the term "interference" and the statements concerning the runner "interferring" with a fielder's right to catch a thrown ball (which does not exist).

As it has been pointed out, the POE does not mention the "about to receive" when mentioning "crashing" into a fielder with the ball.

I will agree that 8.7.Q would give you the out that I was relying on the Henry Pollard USC interp for the out, but that one being based on the USC, not the crash in particular.

I intend to submit a rule change supporting HPs USC interpretation, but I do not know how that would affect the other rules being discussed in this thread.