retired runner

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by WestMichBlue

... snip ... Reading these case plays would seem to contradict the interpretations we have voiced on this forum repeatedly that a retired runner should not be forced to suddenly disappear. If the runner did not have adequate time to avoid the fielder making a play on another runner, we were not going to call interference if the play could not be executed.


Now I am not sure!

WMB

That's about where I am, causing this topic. I need an NCAA expert answer as well, including the "play available" or not which seems to be different between ASA and NFHS ("ASA automatically says Dead Ball, call Interference. NFHS says to call interference if the umpire judged the interference prevented the other runner from being put out.").

Is the "discrepancy" between rules and cases merely because the cases assume the specifics of the rule have been met and are only providing examples of the physics?

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

That's about where I am, causing this topic. I need an NCAA expert answer as well, including the "play available" or not which seems to be different between ASA and NFHS ("ASA automatically says Dead Ball, call Interference. NFHS says to call interference if the umpire judged the interference prevented the other runner from being put out.").

Is the "discrepancy" between rules and cases merely because the cases assume the specifics of the rule have been met and are only providing examples of the physics?

I guess five days of no response means there is no answer.

[Andy]

Cecil - a suggestion:

Go to www.cactusumpires.com and post the question on the message board there. Emily regularly reads and responds to the questions posted.

I would catagorize Emily as an NCAA (and FED and ASA) rules expert!