How about an umpire's nightmare.

[Dakota]

Originally posted by IRISHMAFIA
Speaking ASA
Tie ball game with 2 outs UNLESS the umpire's rule that F3's intention was to confuse the defense. ... The rule says that a runner continuing to run MAY be considered a form of interference, didn't say the umpire MUST rule interference.

F9 never left playable territory while in possession of the ball according to the scenario. However, even if F9 held the ball, a collapsed fence is NOT considered DBT. For the ball to be ruled dead at this point, F9 would have had to have an entire part of her body (foot, hand, shoulder, umpire's descretion) completely off the collapsed fence and in DBT for the umpire to rule the ball dead.

Mike,
I agree wrt the fence. I think it is POE 20 that clarifies that a collapsed fence is still in LBT.

Wrt the interference, I mostly agree - it is left to umpire judgment whether to call interference, since the rule does say may and not must.

My small disagreement is that judging intent is not the only thing that can result in an interference call. Stupid base running can also result in the interference call, IMO, since the rule does not require intent in drawing the throw. It says A runner continuing to run and drawing a throw may be ... It doesn't say "continuing to run to draw a throw" - just that the running did draw a throw.

In the play described, the runner should have known she was out, but all of the fielders may not have known, and assuming the defense had a play on R1 going home, but instead went for the easier "out" on R3. I would call this interference.

If you don't call the interference, then the home team wins - game over - since 2 runs scored (R1 and R2) - right?

[Edited by Dakota on Nov 20th, 2001 at 11:37 AM]

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by Dakota
[B
My small disagreement is that judging intent is not the only thing that can result in an interference call. Stupid base running can also result in the interference call, IMO, since the rule does not require intent in drawing the throw. It says A runner continuing to run and drawing a throw may be ... It doesn't say "continuing to run to draw a throw" - just that the running did draw a throw.

In the play described, the runner should have known she was out, but all of the fielders may not have known, and assuming the defense had a play on R1 going home, but instead went for the easier "out" on R3. I would call this interference. [/B]

This is why I would like to have witnessed the call. If there was a call, maybe it was weak and not sold. You know how loud it gets when things begin happening in a JO game d:-)

The reason I mentioned intent was because the first sentence of the rule being quoted (8.8.P) states, "When, after being put out or scoring, a runner intentionally interferes with a defensive player's opportunity to make a play on another runner."

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that is THE call and no other possibility exist, but lacking further details, it could have been the proper ruling.

[Dakota]

Originally posted by IRISHMAFIA

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that is THE call and no other possibility exist, but lacking further details, it could have been the proper ruling.

We are in agreement!