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
  #27 (permalink)  
Old Tue Aug 24, 2010, 10:30am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Upstate, SC
Posts: 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by BretMan View Post
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..
Are you saying then that on a ground ball where a runner runs into a fielder while fielding the ball you're going to call that runner out for interference AND the BR out because the interference prevented a throw to first? Or would you do this only if you thought they would have gotten both the runner and the BR without the interference?

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...
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 04:31pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1