|
Thu Mar 31, 2011, 11:45am
|
|||
|
|||
|
I'm having a hard time picturing how R1 ended up on top of F2.
If R1 slid into home and F2's legs, shouldn't F2 be on top of R1? If this is the case, F2 should be able to get up and retrieve the ball, and I don't see interference here. You stated that R1 had "had rolled on top of" F2.....to me, this doesn't sound like something that would normally happen on a play like this. From your description, I think this action qualifies as interference. HTBT for sure, but there's my $0.02 As to where to place the other runner, I think that has been answered.
__________________
It's what you learn after you think you know it all that's important! 
|
| Bookmarks |
| Tags |
| intent, interference, nfhs |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Obstruction/interference/"malicious" contact non-ruling (NFHS)... | jcwells | Baseball | 7 | Wed Jul 09, 2008 06:04pm |
| ABC's "Nightline" examines "worst calls ever" tonight | pizanno | Basketball | 27 | Fri Jul 04, 2008 06:08am |
| No "Intent" in interference | DaveASA/FED | Softball | 14 | Mon Jan 29, 2007 12:07pm |
| 2007 NFHS Rules Changes - "Step and Reach" | Dakota | Softball | 8 | Mon Jul 10, 2006 02:46pm |
Threaded Mode
