|
|
|||
Interference - Is intent Required?
Nobody out, runner on 2nd. R1 has left 2nd base on an infield pop up. In the process of running back to the bag to tag up, she interferes with the defensive player (F4) attempting to catch the ball. R1's foot is in contact with the base when the contact occurs. There was no apparent intent, R1's momentum simply carried her a little past the bag making contact with F4 who was waiting to catch the ball. (FYI, the interference consisted of R1 contacting F4's face with R1's facemask, cutting F4 below the eye).
If a runner is on base and interferes with a defensive player, is she automatically out or is intent required? What is the call? 1 - No call, contact was incidental, both runner and batter are safe. 2 - R1 is out for interference. Batter is safe at first. 3 - R1 is out for interference and batter is out as R1 could have avoided contact by sliding or diving back to the bag. Thank you for your input. Last edited by ACES Coach; Sat Aug 21, 2010 at 07:53pm. |
|
|||
KJ: It doesn't matter if the ball was caught or not. I have (2) R2 is out for interference. Batter is safe at first.
By rule you must judge intent when a runner is on the bag and INT occurs. She may say her intent was not to interfere with the play, but her intent was to get back to the base. She just did it badly and while keeping a foot on the bag caused the interference. The reason I would not call a second out is because R1 was on 2nd, therefore there was no additional play to support the call. |
|
|||
I have an out for interference. BR gets 1st base. R2's momentum coming back to 2nd base carried her into F4. If R2 would have stayed at 2nd base without interfering with the catch, I would have nothing, play on.
|
|
|||
Quote:
It's not that it doesn't matter....it's that it could possibly matter. R2 interfered with F4 who was attempting to catch a pop-up. R2 is called out for interference. If (in my judgement) R2's interference prevented F4 from catching the ball for an out on the BR, (as in F4 is right underneath the ball with her glove extended to make the catch)....I've got the BR out in addition to R2. Two outs. Last edited by KJUmp; Fri Aug 20, 2010 at 05:59pm. |
|
|||
Quote:
__________________
The bat issue in softball is as much about liability, insurance and litigation as it is about competition, inflated egos and softball. |
Bookmarks |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Is a Re-Touch Required? | cshs81 | Baseball | 13 | Sun Apr 13, 2008 01:35pm |
When I'm Wrong, I'm wrong: Interference is better without intent | wadeintothem | Softball | 48 | Thu Apr 12, 2007 12:58am |
No "Intent" in interference | DaveASA/FED | Softball | 14 | Mon Jan 29, 2007 12:07pm |
NCAA Pass Interference - Intent required? | mwingram | Football | 2 | Sat Nov 09, 2002 12:54pm |
Intent/Letter of the law: Interference | Patrick Szalapski | Baseball | 1 | Sat Mar 17, 2001 07:20pm |