The Official Forum

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Softball (https://forum.officiating.com/softball/)
-   -   Interference with F3 on Fly Ball (https://forum.officiating.com/softball/94729-interference-f3-fly-ball.html)

MD Longhorn Tue Apr 09, 2013 12:24pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Big Slick (Post 889955)
Maybe you want to view this:


This is an interpretation posted on the Arbiter. The bold in my emphasis.

Absolutely - IFF is called out as a specific separate case.

MD Longhorn Tue Apr 09, 2013 12:30pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA (Post 889968)
So, you are saying a DDB is situational in NCAA's rules concerning INT?

I wish they would use that term (DDB) - it would be more clear. However, I'm saying this based on videos from the clinics.

Unfortunately, the rule only implies it, and doesn't state it outright. Here's one place:

12.19.1.4 Physical contact by the base runner with a fielder attempting to field
a fair batted ball or a foul ball that might become fair shall be interference,
provided the fielder had a reasonable chance to make a play and was
prevented from doing so.


The "and was prevented from doing so" certainly implies that we must wait to see if they are actually prevented.

Also under effect:

If the interference prevents the fielder from catching a routine
fly ball, the batter is also out


Again, the wording of "prevents the fielder from catching". It's not as clear as anyone would like - but with the clarifications at clinics, it's is clear what they want here.

Big Slick Tue Apr 09, 2013 01:00pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn (Post 889995)
Absolutely - IFF is called out as a specific separate case.

No, it isn't. The amount of runners on is not an issue. The case play happened to have IFF in effect, but same effect if R1 was the only runner.

Case plays on arbiter, from the NCAA rules editor, constantly use the phase that I highlighted: "interference is an immediate dead ball." It is even part of the rule:
Quote:

As a general rule, when on-deck batter, batter, batter-runner, base runner or coach interference occurs: (1) the ball becomes dead, (2) the violator is called out,
Quote:

12-19-1 The base runner may not interfere with a fielder attempting to field a batted ball.
EFFECT—The ball is dead.
Fielders cannot make a play once interference is called: they are "prevented" from catching a fly ball; they are "prevented" from throwing a ball to another fielder; they are "prevented" from catching a ground ball. They are "prevented" from any other action because -- the ball is dead.

Please, please please have your clinicians send me their materials and/or videos. Because they are wrong. All of the clinics that I have attended (which include ones being hosted and presented by the SUP) have never made this distinction.

MD Longhorn Tue Apr 09, 2013 03:56pm

Think what you wish, BS. I would ask you what the purpose of the rule I quoted might mean if the one you quoted is the only rule we should look at here.

But I don't have the energy right now for a semantic argument when I know what I've seen on about 10 different occasions. Call what you want... I hope your bosses like what you call.

IRISHMAFIA Tue Apr 09, 2013 06:52pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn (Post 890000)
I wish they would use that term (DDB) - it would be more clear. However, I'm saying this based on videos from the clinics.

Unfortunately, the rule only implies it, and doesn't state it outright. Here's one place:

12.19.1.4 Physical contact by the base runner with a fielder attempting to field
a fair batted ball or a foul ball that might become fair shall be interference,
provided the fielder had a reasonable chance to make a play and was
prevented from doing so.

I obviously do not have all the publications, but I read this as saying there actually has to be a play available to the defender for INT to apply. IOW, the defender had a play, not just running toward a ball with absolutely no possibility of getting anyone out even if the INT was not evident.

MD Longhorn Wed Apr 10, 2013 08:30am

Quote:

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA (Post 890167)
I obviously do not have all the publications, but I read this as saying there actually has to be a play available to the defender for INT to apply. IOW, the defender had a play, not just running toward a ball with absolutely no possibility of getting anyone out even if the INT was not evident.

provided the fielder had a reasonable chance to make a play and was
prevented from doing so.

I agree that what you said and "provided the fielder had a reasonable chance to make a play" are equivalent. But if that is what the rulesmaker's intent was they would not have added, "and was prevented from doing so".

IRISHMAFIA Wed Apr 10, 2013 12:03pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn (Post 890242)
provided the fielder had a reasonable chance to make a play and was
prevented from doing so.

I agree that what you said and "provided the fielder had a reasonable chance to make a play" are equivalent. But if that is what the rulesmaker's intent was they would not have added, "and was prevented from doing so".

A little clearer.

I used to play with a SS that dove for anything. I mean anything! 20' away when he hit the ground, but he dove for the ball. He was attempting to make a play, but he had no shot at doing so. If a runner was going from 2B to 3B and this guy dove for a ball up the middle that there was no chance to make a play and flew into that runner, I'm not calling INT.

To me, that is how that rule reads. Granted, it may not be well written, but that is how this hi skuel gratiate reads it.

jmkupka Wed Jun 13, 2018 08:49am

similar sit this weekend, where F3 runs hard into the 1B coach while chasing a fly ball which just crosses the fence out of play (high fence; no chance of reaching over to make the catch).

If I call INT at the time of collision, I clearly have to reverse my call, no?


(sorry, didn't realize this was a 5-year old thread)

Manny A Thu Jun 14, 2018 12:56pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmkupka (Post 1022337)
similar sit this weekend, where F3 runs hard into the 1B coach while chasing a fly ball which just crosses the fence out of play (high fence; no chance of reaching over to make the catch).

If I call INT at the time of collision, I clearly have to reverse my call, no?


(sorry, didn't realize this was a 5-year old thread)

On a foul ball like that, I'm not making any immediate call of interference on the coach. I'm going to wait until I see if the ball was catchable. But I will definitely give the fielder the maximum benefit of the doubt after I see where the ball ended up.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:43pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1