B/r int

[EsqUmp]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

In a, R1 did not commit an act of interference as s/he was simply advancing to the base to which s/he was forced. Live ball.

I don't know whether this is a direct quotation or a paraphrase. If it is a direct quotation, it is a dangerous statement. Though it might be intended to only apply to this specific scenario, using terminology such as "simply advancing to the base to which she was forced" could open up a pandora's box.

Whether, in my opinion, I agree with the interpretation, it is a terrible way to justify a call. I would almost expect it to come out of the mouth of a coach, not an ASA test creator.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by EsqUmp

I don't know whether this is a direct quotation or a paraphrase. If it is a direct quotation, it is a dangerous statement. Though it might be intended to only apply to this specific scenario, using terminology such as "simply advancing to the base to which she was forced" could open up a pandora's box.

Whether, in my opinion, I agree with the interpretation, it is a terrible way to justify a call. I would almost expect it to come out of the mouth of a coach, not an ASA test creator.

Just curious, but how would you justify the No Interference call in (a) then?

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by EsqUmp

I don't know whether this is a direct quotation or a paraphrase. If it is a direct quotation, it is a dangerous statement. Though it might be intended to only apply to this specific scenario, using terminology such as "simply advancing to the base to which she was forced" could open up a pandora's box.

Whether, in my opinion, I agree with the interpretation, it is a terrible way to justify a call. I would almost expect it to come out of the mouth of a coach, not an ASA test creator.

It's a direct quote, although you removed the context. It's not meant to be a stand-alone quote.

That said ... in what way do you envision this opening Pandora's Box? If the runner (in the scenario we're talking about) is simply advancing, and doing nothing else, what circumstance could make you think INT was even remotely on the table?

[PATRICK]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

It's a direct quote, although you removed the context. It's not meant to be a stand-alone quote.

That said ... in what way do you envision this opening Pandora's Box? If the runner (in the scenario we're talking about) is simply advancing, and doing nothing else, what circumstance could make you think INT was even remotely on the table?

I'm more worried with the NCAA interp opening up Pandora's Box.

[Andy]

Originally Posted by PATRICK

I'm more worried with the NCAA interp opening up Pandora's Box.

Amen....

[HugoTafurst]

Originally Posted by PATRICK

I'm more worried with the NCAA interp opening up Pandora's Box.

I was going to mention that.....but I don't want to open a Pandora's Box.

[Crabby_Bob]

Originally Posted by HugoTafurst

I was going to mention that.....but I don't want to open a Pandora's Box.

You didn't.... NCAA blew up the box.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by PATRICK

I'm more worried with the NCAA interp opening up Pandora's Box.

Here, I'll open it. To support the allowance of an INT ruling when a runner gets hit with a thrown ball without that runner attempting to get hit, attempting to hit the ball or just do something stupid to interfere with the throw is an idiotic and cowardly interpretation.

[Manny A]

The OP is very similar to the play in FED where a retired batter (by virtue of an uncaught third strike where she is not allowed to advance to first since there's a runner already occupying it) runs to first base anyway and hinders a throw being made back to first base to pickoff the runner diving back. It's specifically covered in a case play (8.6.18.C) in the 2013 FED case book.

Sounds like ASA would treat this play differently.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by Manny A

The OP is very similar to the play in FED where a retired batter (by virtue of an uncaught third strike where she is not allowed to advance to first since there's a runner already occupying it) runs to first base anyway and hinders a throw being made back to first base to pickoff the runner diving back. It's specifically covered in a case play (8.6.18.C) in the 2013 FED case book.

Sounds like ASA would treat this play differently.

I would rule the same in ASA; in that play, it isn't a batter-runner, a runner, or anyone that ever had the right or obligation to run. It is a retired batter that has just one responsibility remaining; to NOT interfere with a play or attempted play.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

I would rule the same in ASA; in that play, it isn't a batter-runner, a runner, or anyone that ever had the right or obligation to run. It is a retired batter that has just one responsibility remaining; to NOT interfere with a play or attempted play.

So why would the OP be different? Is it because the pitch was batted, giving the batter the opportunity to advance even though it was foul?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by EsqUmp

I don't know whether this is a direct quotation or a paraphrase. If it is a direct quotation, it is a dangerous statement. Though it might be intended to only apply to this specific scenario, using terminology such as "simply advancing to the base to which she was forced" could open up a pandora's box.

Whether, in my opinion, I agree with the interpretation, it is a terrible way to justify a call. I would almost expect it to come out of the mouth of a coach, not an ASA test creator.

If you are referring to the word "forced", I used that in the context of the play to avoid the "but if he didn't have to run, doing so could be an act of interference" bullshit that comes around from the third-world sect.