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
  #15 (permalink)  
Old Sat Aug 21, 2010, 08:37pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 937
Quote:
Originally Posted by ACES Coach View Post
Is there ever a case where interference would not lead to at least one out?

The call on this play was "no call". The score at the time was 8-7 in a championship game at the "A" level. The umpire stated that the interference was not "intentional", so both runners were safe. The call was then protested by the coach stating that the interference does not need to be "intentional" to be called. The protest committee also determined that since the runner was on the bag at the time of contact and that the contact was not "intentional", then this was considered incidental contact and "no call".

It is beyond my comprehension how an infielder waiting to catch a ball can be contacted (in the face and actually drawing blood) by a runner and the fact that the runners foot is touching the base results in a no call. Is there a rule in existence that would justify this call?
Interference is a judgement call. In their judgement the contact was incidental...hence they ruled no interference. R1 on 2nd, R2 on 1st. Play on.
You obviously disagree with their judgement, but it's a judgement call as so many calls are...balls, strikes, safe, out, fair, foul etc.
Remember, it was posted earlier that most "was this interference?" sitchs that are posted are HTBT type plays.
BTW....how was a protest allowed to be lodged on a judgement call?
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 02:10pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1