The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Softball
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Fri Aug 20, 2010, 10:55pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 937
Quote:
Originally Posted by vcblue View Post
KJ: What opportunity did the fielder have to make a play on another player(8-7-P)? Or, how was she preventing a double play from happening (8-7-J-Effect)? These are the only two reasons to get the 2nd out, and the OP makes it clear that there was no possibility of a play to get that 2nd out (in addition to the catch). There was only R1 on the bases. R1 was on the base when she committed the interference. By book rule you call INT on R1 "Dead Ball" BR get's first.

Now let's say R1 was on 1st and she INT with F4 close to second. Then sure, 2 outs. But once again this does not matter whether she caught the ball or not. Just my judgment that she could have caught the pop up, and my judgment that the runner was far enough away from the base that she would not have made it back in time to tag up.
You are correct.
I'm wrong.
But, IMO it's a crappy written rule (the EFFECT portion) in it's current form. It's logic and rationale are not consistent with the ruling/interpretation presented in RS#33 D:
"If interference occurs by the runner on a foul fly ball not caught but, in the umpire's judgement could have with ordinary effort had the interference not occurred, the runner is out and the batter is also out."

Or, RS#33 D is not consistent with 8-7-J, take your pick.

I mean think about it, runner on base bangs into a fielder in the act of catching a routine pop-up, 1 OUT....BR to 1st. Runner on base does the same thing to a fielder in the act of fielding a foul ball with ordinary effort, both runner and batter are out...2 OUTS. How does that make common sense?
Reply With Quote
 

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


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


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:22am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1