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
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Wed Jan 29, 2003, 04:08pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 14,565
Okay, my turn.

First off, I find it hard to believe an umpire on this board referred to this as "catcher's interference".

I don't think this is such a far stretch to understand the instructor's interpretation. Merle may come back with something else, but let's remember one thing-obstruction only protects the person offended and those affected by it.

The runner's interference was not a result of the obstruction.

My call would be to kill the play when the INT occurred. Rule R1 out on the INT (as it was a rules violation independent of the CO). If intentional, R1 would also be gone. Since the runners were forced to evacuate their bases by the batted ball, R2 will not be ruled out at 2B even if INT was intentional. Since the options bring about identical results, R2 would be placed on 2B and the batter on 1B.

__________________
The bat issue in softball is as much about liability, insurance and litigation as it is about competition, inflated egos and softball.
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 02:25pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1