The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Softball
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jan 25, 2007, 10:55am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Woodstock, GA; Atlanta area
Posts: 2,822
The "intent" wasn't simply removed; it was replaced with the word and concept "actively". So, I ask you, in your play, what was done by the runner to "actively" interfere?

If R1 throws her hands up, and the ball hits her hands and deflects away, maybe. This concept requires the person who interferes to do something specific which creates the interference. Just as before. We just don't have to get in her head to try to figure out why she did it; if she did it (and "it" isn't simply doing what she should do), and it interferes, it is interference.

Does that help? Or am I just talking to convince myself?
__________________
Steve
ASA/ISF/NCAA/NFHS/PGF
Reply With Quote
 

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The 3 versus 2 fallacies, a mini-rant - "Part deux" imaref Basketball 6 Thu Jan 04, 2007 11:39am
Why "general" and "additional"? Back In The Saddle Basketball 1 Sat Oct 07, 2006 02:56pm
"Balk" or "Ball" johnnyg08 Baseball 9 Fri Aug 18, 2006 08:26am
Batter Interference or "Thats Nothin" oneonone Softball 5 Sun Jun 11, 2006 09:02pm


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:42am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1