[QUOTE]Originally posted by IRISHMAFIA

Quote:

I think Scott is looking for an INT discussion here. :)

That's exactly what I was looking for.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dakota

Quote:

"If there is no play, there is no interference."

That was the point I made to the umpire who asked the question of me after the game.

Oh, I'm just taking another opportunity to bash the NFHS - as WMB would accuse me of - but, not really BASH them, more like make fun of them. Besides, has this now been adopted by the ASA, too??? Seems like I remember some discussion about it late last year.

The "silly interpretation" is the NFHS (and maybe others') interpretation of the running lane violation to include when the batter-runner who is awarded a base on balls gets hit by a thrown ball when out of the lane, regardless of whether there is any real play possible at 1B.

Ah. Gotcha.

Same origional question but instead of offensive player, change to defensive player. “Before the ball enters the dugout, the ball caroms off an DEFENSIVE player not in the game and who is sitting at the edge of the dugout, then into the dugout. What do you rule?”

Dead ball. Runners awarded two bases from TOP.

Skaht - nice quote. Bringing out a little Steven Wright for all to enjoy. Nice.

One of my favorites: I used to work at a fire hydrant company, but I hated it because you couldn't park anywhere near the place.

That and his one long joke - the nympho joke.

Thanks. All of my quotes on here have been Steven Wright quotes. He is perhaps the funniest human in the stand-up biz...IMO.

I have a map of the world that is actual size.... a little square down in the ocean says one mile = one mile.

Scott -

Just wondering why the ruling isn't the same for both? Since the ball was inches from DBA.
Could you provide the NFHS rule you are basing your call on?

thanks

Why should the offense benefit from interfering with action? THEY prevented it from leaving the field of play. It didn't leave the field of play, even if you think/suspect/know it was going to.

Well, no, ASA did not change their interpretation of this play.

ASA simply removed the comment "without liability to be put out" when talking about a walk because in FP the BR could enter DBT, interfere with a play on another runner, etc. I just attended a clinic with the top two ASA guys and when this rule change was covered, they never mentioned a change in the existing interpretation.

That is what I was hoping Scott would say.
Keeping non participants off the field and totally in the dugout in the first place makes this problem go away.

Sorry. Just got back here after leaving my last post Friday. I don't ever read this board on the weekends.