The ball was still in the circle. IMJ, based on the OP, and obviously the judgment of the umpire who witnessed the play, F6 did not have a play on the batted ball, deflected or otherwise. I don't believe just being the closest fielder to a deflected ball automatically gives the fielder protection. Even more so if the umpire believes a defender was trying to draw an INT call.

Nope, a snowball has a better chance of lasting a July day in Phoenix than this being INT :D

How about this: That right there reads like umpire judgment to me.

Yeah, thats probably about the best hope of salvaging a decent call.

Thats the second time you've said that and its not that I totally disagree.
BUT, NFHS wrote the rules.... coaches/schools play under these rules.
We read, memorize and arbitrate the game under these rules.
Poorly written or not (as per your expressed opinion) if the rules say its INT its INT.... not OBS because its the right call under ASA or whatever other rule set.
Personally, I don't know why they are written that way... and I don't care. When I call FED its INT.
(This wasn't meant to come off sounding like a lecture or anything of that type... its just how I look at the games I am calling as I call them)

Peace.

I dont constrain my self to that type of rationalization.... probably get myself in a lot less trouble if I did :D

For me, int requires at a MINIMUM - a chance at a play. No play, no Int. For me that is a logical and reasonable application of the rules within the intent and spirit of fair play. As such I'm thinking the Dakota loop hole is a pretty good start at trying to make some sense out of a horribly written rule.

Unlike all logically written rule sets - in NFHS, even by their definition, the defensive player does not even have to be involved in a play to draw an Int call.

If on this play, the Right fielder was running to back up F3 while F1 and F6 are muffing this play - and the BR rounded 1B interfering with F9s chance to back up F3 (even though no ball was coming) that could be construed as interfering with a defensive player and NOT obs on the part of F9.

No play is ever required or chance at a play by NFHS's definition.

I dont have to pretend thats not idiotic just because they wrote it.

Wow.. that's a "bit" of a reach. and I or anyone could poke all kind of holes in the above scenario.

BUT, I see your point and its taken.
Thanks for y'alls patience. :D

Well if they tried it, I'd just direct them to the NFHS INT definition 2-31-1 and tell em

Poorly written or not (as per your expressed opinion) if the rules say its INT its INT.... not OBS because its the right call under ASA or whatever other rule set.
Personally, I don't know why they are written that way... and I don't care. When I call FED its INT.

;)

hey!! Dont be using my own words against me!! :D Only my wife is allowed to do that! (d@mn coaches) ;)

There is also this in the NFHS POE on Interference:By standing still (forever in game time), the fielder squandered her opportunity. The runner is not required to stand there like Gaston (educate yourselves, you young whippersnappers!).

http://www.toonopedia.com/alphgast.jpg

How did you know this call was made in Phoenix?!?!? :D

RKB and I traded emails on this one before I suggested he put it on the board.

My conclusion is in line with the group...Call OBS on the field, but an INT call could be supported by the letter of the poorly written rule.

"By not making a move I felt she had not made an attempt to field the ball [LEFT][CENTER][RIGHT][U]until after the runner had moved in front of her."

That is an inference that I think needs more scrutiny. What or who :D says she has to move immediately. Is it not just as valid that she thought "should I get that ball or wait to see if the pitcher is cat like and can get it".
Sees she isn't and moves to get the ball. Anything in our rules says that her opportunity on an initial play is up because she had a thought on the field before moving]

Next, do not know how this message ended up like this.

Nothing in rules about how long the defensive player has before she loses chance to make an initial play and that is language used by those wIn Maryland, interference as play is written. ho make decisions. That is how it was put to me.

I don't think that is the entire issue, at least, not with me. A better question may be did she have a play on the ball?

Remember, it is stated F6 hesitated and the runner waited for her to go for the ball. When F6 did not make a move, the runner proceeded as is her right. F6 blindsides R1 as she is passing in front of her.

As an umpire, we all need to make decisions. If you want to call this INT every time, then I'm just going to teach my infielders to stand in place until the forced runner moves in front of her. That way the runner will either be out for INT, or be held at bay until another fielder retrieves the ball and puts her out.

Say that happens as the pitcher picks up the ball immediately after the contact. Hell, it must still be in the circle. Are you still going to call OBS because at that split second you still thought F6 could have had the initial play?

If the runner moves behind F6 to advance to 3B, are you prepared to rule OBS if F6 is not the first fielder to the ball?

Boy, ASA's handling of this situation is so much easier to understand and apply. And probably maintains more of a level playing field, too.

"Boy, ASA's handling of this situation is so much easier to understand and apply. And probably maintains more of a level playing field, too."

Agreed!!!

A better question may be did she have a play on the ball?

good point.

Ron

Which one? :p :)