| AtlUmpSteve |
Tue Jun 05, 2007 01:19pm |
Quote:
Originally Posted by wadeintothem
No missing piece, they were disagreeing in principle with the application of the rule (deflected ball) in this instance... not the judgment.
|
The difficulty in ruling INT is 8-7-J(4); it says the runner is out if <b>intentionally</b> interfering with a fielder fielding a deflected ball. I don't see where ASA differentiates between deflected and muffed, or that there is a continuing initial play, like NFHS. In absence of any of that, it seems to me that any ball touched but not controlled is deflected, even if it is the same fielder attempting to field the deflected ball that initially deflected it.
Putting myself in UIC shoes, and this call is protested, the question I have to ask Wade is if he judged the contact to be intentional (without mindreading required, did the runner actively seek the contact, or fail to yield when she reasonably could). If that criteria is met, I have interference under 8-7-J(4). If he has to honestly say that the runner could not have avoided, and did nothing to appear to indicate she was looking to contact, then we look if the fielder is protected. If the fielder still had a play to retire any runner, then the fielder is protected from obstruction, and we have a "no call". If the runners were all already safe in Wade's judgment, we have obstruction.
He was there, I wasn't. If I had that play, that is the same questions I would ask myself (or my partner, if we were getting together on the play). |
