Today's first Oregon-Texas game.

[Big Slick]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Hmm.

She made the catch despite the interference, and it was a circus catch at that (she caught it falling down, which she fell down due to the interference).

I can understand the misapplication of the rule, this is something you do not see very often and becomes one of those "little known rules."

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Big Slick

She made the catch despite the interference, and it was a circus catch at that (she caught it falling down, which she fell down due to the interference).

I can understand the misapplication of the rule, this is something you do not see very often and becomes one of those "little known rules."

I do understand that, and would rule 2 outs as well, despite the fact that this rule is in the wrong place.

But I've been saying for at least 2 years now that the way they wrote the rule is NOT what they mean (and not what we call!). The way they wrote it, taken literally, means we cannot call 2 outs if the fielder actually manages to catch the ball. Which is rather stupid as it would penalize the defense for making the catch (and reward them for not making it).

I know what the "right" ruling is... it's just not what the book says it is anymore.

[CecilOne]

Where is that lawyer? Obviously, the INT prevented the catch from being routine, so it prevented a routine catch.

[Crabby_Bob]

As it's written, "routine" modifies "fly ball", not "catch"

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Crabby_Bob

As it's written, "routine" modifies "fly ball", not "catch"

I would think it would be more along the line of ability ot effort.

[Crabby_Bob]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

I would think it would be more along the line of ability ot effort.

Granted.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by Crabby_Bob

As it's written, "routine" modifies "fly ball", not "catch"

I did say " "

[Big Slick]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

I do understand that, and would rule 2 outs as well, despite the fact that this rule is in the wrong place.

But I've been saying for at least 2 years now that the way they wrote the rule is NOT what they mean (and not what we call!). The way they wrote it, taken literally, means we cannot call 2 outs if the fielder actually manages to catch the ball. Which is rather stupid as it would penalize the defense for making the catch (and reward them for not making it).

I know what the "right" ruling is... it's just not what the book says it is anymore.

I agree that the wording is screwy, however, think of it this way: once there is interference, the ball is dead, and it is inconsequential if the ball ends up in the fielders glove. Technically the fielder can't catch it (the ball is dead), and thus she is prevented in doing so.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by Big Slick

I agree that the wording is screwy, however, think of it this way: once there is interference, the ball is dead, and it is inconsequential if the ball ends up in the fielders glove. Technically the fielder can't catch it (the ball is dead), and thus she is prevented in doing so.

Better than my legality!