|
Sun Sep 30, 2001, 09:38pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Make the Call
ASA Fastpitch--
R1 on 1B, BR hits towering fly to medium RF, F9 catches ball when it finally comes down. BR has wheels and has rounded first passing R1. F9 sees advancing BR going in towards 2b, F9 fires ball to F6, however, ball is over her head and into left field foul territory. (BR has now circled to the RF area and is retreating to her dugout). R1 moving towards 2nd on overthrown ball. Interference was called on BR. Correct call? glen
__________________
glen _______________________________ "Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things that you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover." --Mark Twain. 
|
|
Mon Oct 01, 2001, 06:48am
|
|||
|
|||
|
That goes either way depending on how the umpire viewed the play.
Yes, interference could be called based on a retired player drawing a throw. However, the BR is allowed to run-out their play on a batted ball. On the other hand, she should have been aware there was a runner on 1B and that she is not permitted to pass her and should have either pulled up at the base or ran through it. BTW, FP has nothing to do with this d:-) HTBT,
__________________
The bat issue in softball is as much about liability, insurance and litigation as it is about competition, inflated egos and softball.
|
|
Mon Oct 01, 2001, 09:34am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Is intent required?
Would a runner who was so ignorant of the situation to have passed a runner in front of her suddenly become aware that she was out, and would continue to run with the intent of drawing a throw? Unlikley.
So, for the sake of argument, say she was not running with intent to draw a throw. Does this matter? ASA 8-8-P says, in part, When, after being declared out or scoring, a runner intentionally interferes with a defensive player's opportunity to make a play on another runner... A runner continuing to run and drawing a throw may be considered a form of interference. Interesting wording. The notion of "intent" is not repeated in the statement about drawing a throw -- only that it happens -- but the statement uses the phrase may be considered, not is a form of interference. If it MAY be, then there are times when it MAY NOT be. Is judging intent the deciding factor?
|
|
Mon Oct 01, 2001, 07:05pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bob,
F9 may have had something else to watch than which of the players in identical uniforms was the runner and which was the BR.
__________________
The bat issue in softball is as much about liability, insurance and litigation as it is about competition, inflated egos and softball.
|
 |
| Bookmarks |
|
|
Linear Mode
