INT at NC

[IRISHMAFIA]

F3 fielding a dribbler down 1st base line, it hits the heal of her glove and goes about 2 feet to her left as she is reaching for the ball BR contacts her right foot and spins her she had her hand on the ball when the contact was made, so in our judgement she still had the chance at an out (actually went ahead and threw it and did get the out if it would have continued on)....but we called the INT and sent runner back to 1st

Let's discuss Dave's protested call just for fun. Please note: I am not questioning the umpires' or UIC's call and interpretation. It was their judgment on the call and the UIC only addresses the interpretation, not the call.

F3 had the ball in her hand, so let's not even go to the OBS side, didn't exist.

However, did the BR's action actually interfere with F3?

F3 already had possession of the ball, so there is no INT with a fielder attempting to field a batted ball. Based on the scenario above, the BR did not crash into F3. F3 was not about to make a tag or throw the ball at the time of the contact. So what part of 8.2.D-H is applied here?

How about 8.8.J? Again, the BR did not interfere with the fielder attempting to field a batted ball or throwing the ball, nor with the thrown ball itself. However, 8.8.J.4 addresses a deflected ball which this is. Problem there is that this is one place where intention was retained as part of the rule. From the scenario above, I do not see any intent indicated.

Now, for all you trainwreck fans, I would be more likely to allow this as a trainwreck than some of the other situations routinely offered usually involving OBS.

Any thoughts?

[DaveASA/FED]

Well I will let you noodle on this as it was written for a while, there was actually a little more that I left out just for the sake of being brief in the description.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by DaveASA/FED

Well I will let you noodle on this as it was written for a while, there was actually a little more that I left out just for the sake of being brief in the description.

You gave this group an abridged version? That is a bit daring, isn't it?

[DaveASA/FED]

well I got timed out on posting the original so ya, I cut some corners when I typed it in the second time, and if you aren't daring life is boring isn't it?

I am interested in what everyone has to say as it was worded....a more accurate discription of the play was that the BR actually contacted F3's right foot as she was still reaching for the ball hand was near the ball is a better description than on the ball, either way she had not gained control of the ball when contact was made (IMJ she was still in the act of fielding a batted ball) and knocked her off balance (sliding the right foot out) and as the F3 was sliding she gained control of the ball, turned and threw to F4 at 1st from her knees. Again apologize for cutting corners in the original description, but I like where you took it and would love to hear what everyone thinks about it.

[Dholloway1962]

Originally Posted by DaveASA/FED

well I got timed out on posting the original so ya, I cut some corners when I typed it in the second time, and if you aren't daring life is boring isn't it?

I am interested in what everyone has to say as it was worded....a more accurate discription of the play was that the BR actually contacted F3's right foot as she was still reaching for the ball hand was near the ball is a better description than on the ball, either way she had not gained control of the ball when contact was made (IMJ she was still in the act of fielding a batted ball) and knocked her off balance (sliding the right foot out) and as the F3 was sliding she gained control of the ball, turned and threw to F4 at 1st from her knees. Again apologize for cutting corners in the original description, but I like where you took it and would love to hear what everyone thinks about it.

I know this a ASA rule question, but this is a perfect example of the step and reach rule in NFHS.

In ASA...I think you got it right as well.