![]() |
|
|
|||
Quote:
1.72 Interference- equipment or the act of an offensive player... What "act" of interference did she commit? |
|
|||
Quote:
Update: as I look at the video, the ball strikes the runner after the BR arrived at first, therefore not an opportunity for an out. The latter is what we should judge the act, not that "she couldn't get out of the way." Last edited by Big Slick; Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 04:14pm. |
|
|||
Quote:
The Tennessee video is nothing more than F4 throwing a ball at R1. I saw no act of interference in that video. Last edited by PATRICK; Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 04:28pm. |
|
|||
Who exactly is Amy?
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'” West Houston Mike |
|
|||
I very much did, as she was a retired runner. Furthermore, although there was no explanation, why was it shown in the interference section of the presentation?
|
|
|||
Quote:
They are fostering a dodgeball mentality. |
|
|||
Don't call this interference. It's not.
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'” West Houston Mike |
|
|||
So what's the reverse? F6 doesn't throw it because retired R1 is in the throwing lane. And you tell the defensive coach . . .
? |
|
|||
Quote:
Go to the clinic and check the handout... OR, find someone who has been. This video was an example of a mistaken call. If I can find my handout, I'll scan and post. (At the same time, feel free to go check this site's discussion when that actually happened. Panned as a horrible call by nearly everyone).
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'” West Houston Mike |
|
|||
Quote:
There may be handout from your group. It was panned on here, just like now. But what side has the rule support? Last edited by Big Slick; Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 05:01pm. |
|
|||
I would suspect those who agree this is interference will say the "act" is continuing to run in the base line after being retired.
Personally, I don't agree with it. But I come from a baseball umpiring background, and "over there" retired runners aren't expected to immediately disappear, as BretMan mentions. In fact, some baseball rule sets explicitly state that if a runner continues to advance after being retired, he/she shall not by that act alone be considered as interfering. I'm just trying to find out if there is something similar in softball.
__________________
"Let's face it. Umpiring is not an easy or happy way to make a living. In the abuse they suffer, and the pay they get for it, you see an imbalance that can only be explained by their need to stay close to a game they can't resist." -- Bob Uecker |
|
|||
If you been watching the CWS the last few years, you've seen the defense utilize this rule by throwing at the runner coming into second for the interference and dead ball double play. I would thought the NCAA would do something about this before someone is injured! Coaches are teaching their players to throw at the runner because of the rule verbage.
Last edited by roadking; Thu Feb 21, 2013 at 10:13am. |
![]() |
Bookmarks |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Interference by retired runner? | Sco53 | Baseball | 4 | Tue Apr 10, 2012 03:54pm |
Interference by retired runner | charliej47 | Baseball | 16 | Mon Jun 22, 2009 09:00am |
Can a retired runner be appealed? | dash_riprock | Baseball | 11 | Sat Jan 26, 2008 09:22pm |
retired runner | CecilOne | Softball | 16 | Tue Apr 25, 2006 09:23am |
interference by retired runner | shipwreck | Softball | 15 | Thu Sep 18, 2003 07:00am |