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
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Tue Jan 07, 2003, 08:55pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: West Michigan
Posts: 964
Response to Greymule

"I would not call interference unless I believed the runner intentionally tried to block fielder's vision. If she runs normally to the next base, she's OK unless there's contact."
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-

Why are you saying that "intent" is required for an interference call? I believe that "intent" is only considered for interference with a thrown ball, and attempt to prevent double play. Why is contact required? The only time "contact" is considered is when it is malicious.
=============================

"I've seen umps (wrongly) call interference simply because the fielder shied away from a runner who was doing nothing more than advancing"
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*

So F6 moves into the basepath to field that ball and the runner, at the last second, twists away to avoid contact. No intent, no contact. But F6 flinches, to protect herself, and the ball scoots by. An ump is "wrong" to call that interference? FED book says that interference is an ACT that, among other things, "hinders or confuses any fielder attempting to make a play."

I would have to say that generally I am inclined to protect defensive players. Am I wrong in guessing that you tend to protect offensive players?

(Don't misjudge my intent here. Not trying to start a fight, just to keep the conversation going.) WMB
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



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:33am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1