![]() |
|
|||
Okay, let's stop here. Was hoping someone would come back with this after my previous post.
Speaking ASA Fact of life: 8.7.J.1 stats it is INT when a runner interferes with a fielder attempting to field a fair batted ball, which this is. The Effect: The ball is dead. All other runners must return. The Note: When runners are called out for INT, the BR is awarded 1B The Exception to the Note: If the INT prevents the fielder from catching a routine fly ball, fair or foul, with ordinary effort, the batter is also out. Assumption: 8.8.M could be considered an exception though it is worded addressing being actually hit by the batted ball. My interpretation: RS 33.A.1.c gives the runner relief from vacating the space for the defender to catch the ball. It does not give the runner absolute exemption from commiting an act of INT simply because s/he kept contact with the base while not being in control of their own body.
__________________
The bat issue in softball is as much about liability, insurance and litigation as it is about competition, inflated egos and softball. |
Bookmarks |
|
|
![]() |
||||
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 |