|
Wed Jul 09, 2003, 08:03am
|
|||
|
|||
ASA. Do you agree that a runner can interfere without contacting either the ball or fielder? For example, on a slow batted ball toward F4, R1 gets to the path of the ball about the same time as the ball. R1 runs between the ball and fielder just as F4 tries to make the play, but F4 holds up because R1 is in the way. Would it make any difference if the pitcher tipped the ball on the way?
__________________
Officiating takes more than OJT. It's not our jobs to invent rulings to fit our personal idea of what should and should not be. 
|
|
Wed Jul 09, 2003, 08:26am
|
|||
|
|||
|
This is a tough one. I have called it both ways, but now if the runner is simply advancing to the next base and not purposely doing anything to interfere, there has to be contact before I call interference.
Vision blocked, heard the runner approaching, would have charged the ball harder—these are not substantial enough to warrant interference, in my opinion. Giving the fielder the benefit of the doubt in these situations results in unfair calls. There are too many cases where the fielder shies away from the runner unnecessarily. Of course, you HTBT. And yes, if the pitcher tipped the ball, it definitely has to be intentional.
__________________
greymule More whiskey—and fresh horses for my men! Roll Tide!
|
|
Wed Jul 09, 2003, 09:56am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
In the play above, if R1 did nothing more than advance to the next base (what they are suppose to do), it is nothing unless you deemed the R1 didn't have room and kept F4 from reaching the ball. Now, if R1 hesitates and times their passing to be as close as possible with the ball reaching the fielder, interference is going to be the most likely option. Might even get two out of it 
__________________
The bat issue in softball is as much about liability, insurance and litigation as it is about competition, inflated egos and softball.
|
|
Wed Jul 09, 2003, 10:24am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Yes, I "deemed the R1 didn't have room and kept F4 from reaching the ball" and that R1 was aware of the ball's presence.
__________________
Officiating takes more than OJT. It's not our jobs to invent rulings to fit our personal idea of what should and should not be.
|
|
Wed Jul 09, 2003, 11:33am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
__________________
The bat issue in softball is as much about liability, insurance and litigation as it is about competition, inflated egos and softball.
|
|
Wed Jul 09, 2003, 11:46am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Quote:
These are, of course, judgment questions. Assume the runner did nothing obviously intentional or different from just running the bases (because that makes the discussion too easy). In your scenario, the fielder was obviously impeded, definitionally. (The fielder held up "because R1 is in the way" Was the fielder unnecessarily intimidated by the "hoof beat" of the runner? If yes, no interference. Did the fielder have no chance at the ball because the runner was in the way? If yes, interference. I have called no-contact interference on a runner, and will do it again if I see it. What I ask myself is, "If the fielder had continued the charge on the ball, would there have been contact?" If the answer, in my mind, is "yes," then that is interference, in my judgment. If the answer is "no," then that was a fielder who made a mistake, and there is no interference called. If "maybe," then ... well, probably no interference.
__________________
Tom
|
|
Wed Jul 09, 2003, 02:10pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mike's Post, he host with the most (it rhymes)
Mike,
I had a play last year that was in my opinion and those around me (other umps) interference. R1 on First. 2nd baseman playing deep. Weak pop-up to her. She runs up, R1 leaves late and 2nd baseman has to stop 3 feet from the ball because runner goes in front of her. BAll hits ground, I shouted "Dead BAll" "Interference" and rule runner out and batter is awarded first base.
|
 |
| Bookmarks |
|
|
Linear Mode
