![]() |
|
|
|
|||
|
Quote:
Its the way I perceive some people will read the rule in spite of the punctuation: THE RUNNER IS NOT OUT: M. When hit by a batted ball while in contact with the base, unless the runner intentionally interferes with the ball or a fielder making a play. Unfortunately, instead of being applied as an exclusion for being hit with a batted ball while on the base, I think some would cite or a fielder making a play. as a complete and separate application as to a runner being in contact with the base instead of applying to being hit with a batted ball. Quote:
Okay, now for all those who think it is fair to just ignore the obvious catch since the team would lose a runner more advanced, think about the same play at 1B and Crystal Bustos interferes and Natalie Watley was the BR. Watley running instead of Bustos? Yeah, I see no advantage in that swap. ![]() And obviously, or at least I think it is obvious, we should not have separate rules for areas associatated with different bases. Does the ruling suck because it seems unfair? Again, there are two teams out there and if one does things right and the other doesn't, why should the latter get the benefit of doubt?
__________________
The bat issue in softball is as much about liability, insurance and litigation as it is about competition, inflated egos and softball. |
|
|||
|
Quote:
Apparently, both the umpire making this call and the protest committee reviewing the protest consider "a fielder making a play" as a "complete and separate application". The poster asked the question: "Is there a rule in existence that would justify this call?" If there is, then it's got to be this one. Personally, my own sense of the "spirit and intent" of the rules would call the runner out for interference and the batter-runner out because the interference prevented a catch. But I don't like to base rulings on "my own personal sense of right and wrong". I like to base them on actual rules and interpretations. The only problem here is that the rule that seems to apply isn't 100% clear in its intent. |
|
|||
|
The protest was accepted because it was agreed that there was interference on the play, it's just that it was not intentional. This is the basis of the entire question.
If the umpires have determined that there was interference does it make a difference if there was "intent". That is the title of the thread. If the umpires did not feel there was interference, they wouldn't have accepted the protest. In the write up after the game, the umpires wrote that there was no "intentional interference". It would be my understanding from the rule book that intent has nothing to do with interference. Interference is an automatic call. Interference without intent - 1 out Interference with intent - 2 outs The umpires did decide that the interference was not intentional, which should have resulted in just R1 being out. I am looking for some justification that would allow this to be a "no call" after interference has been determined. |
|
|||
|
There seems to be some circular reasoning or problem with semantics going on here.
You can't rule "unintentional interference". It is either interference or it is not. If the umpire thinks that the act did not meet the definition of interference, then he shouldn't rule interference. If he thinks it did, then there are penalties to apply (in this case, at least one and possibly two outs). If he thinks that rule 8-8-M means that interference by a runner in contact with a base must be an intentional act, and he judges whatever the runner did wasn't intentional, then there was no interference on the play- not "interference, but we ignore it" or "interference without a penalty". So I don't really get "there was interference on the play, but it wasn't intentional" as a good explanation of the call. What this would really have to mean would be "there was contact on the play, but it was not interference". |
|
|||
|
Agree. If it is INT, someone should be ruled out. If no one is ruled out, it may have been contact, intentional or unintentional, it may have been confusing, it may or may not have been fair, but it cannot be INT.
__________________
The bat issue in softball is as much about liability, insurance and litigation as it is about competition, inflated egos and softball. |
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
|||
|
Quote:
IMHO, the out for interference for causing the missed catch replaces the out for the catch. That player leaves and the BR goes to 1B.
__________________
Just Tryin' to Learn... |
|
|||
|
Quote:
Then your humble opinion is in direct conflict with what is printed in the ASA rule book. |
![]() |
| Bookmarks |
|
|
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 |