Did the rule book editors forget this one?

[IRISHMAFIA]

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,

[wadeintothem]

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]

[IRISHMAFIA]

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.