Interference question - does the run count?

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

....Looking at my most recent rulebook, not on page 66 that year, however, Rule 8-6 (10-14 PENALTY):...

The wording is exactly the same in the 2010 book. (I corrected your rule reference )

BTW, anyone who is a member of the NFHS Officials Association can access the 2010 books online.

[shagpal]

steve, I'm lost in your translation. did I miss read the OP again, I did so the first time. you see that in my reply to him. I'll edit the first part of my initial reply, since I wrote that without fully carefully reading andy's OP.

my impression from rereading andy's OP carefully was that R2 scores BEFORE the interference.

the question by andy is, "does the run score"? given R2 crosses the plate before the interference. if I am reading his question correctly, it is, who becomes "closest runner to home", which I attempted to answer. I didn't see your answer if you did answer this.

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

Re-read that which you again cited without quoting. No, not everyone has the new rulebook at this point; even citing the proper rule would help. Four states won't play NFHS Softball until the fall, so the 2010 Rulebooks will be made available in about 5 months. Looking at my most recent rulebook, not on page 66 that year, however, Rule 8-2 (10-14 PENALTY):





Since R2 was already out when interfering, the proper rule is 8-6-18, interference by a retired runner; Penalty states ball is dead and the runner closest to home at the time of the interference shall be declared out.

Your citation of 8-6 (10-14) Penalty applies only when a runner that is NOT already retired interferes with the front end of an obvious double play. Not in this post.

[Dakota]

Steve's point was that you were wrongly saying the BR is out due to the runner breaking up a double play. The runner who committed the interference was already retired at the time of the interference, therefore the referece you cited does not apply.

[shagpal]

yeah, I had to reread that OP. I thought my follow up made it clear that I misread it at first. even the quotes shows I had misread it, and I followed it up without changing the first part of my reply showing I misread it. should I explain one more time how it was misread?

Originally Posted by Dakota

Steve's point was that you were wrongly saying the BR is out due to the runner breaking up a double play. The runner who committed the interference was already retired at the time of the interference, therefore the referece you cited does not apply.