ASA Interference?

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by chuck chopper

Do you mean F5 ?

No.

Originally Posted by chuck chopper

, anyway lead runner it seems is out (the one who interfered)

No.

Originally Posted by chuck chopper

, all others return unless forced to advance as B/R becomes a runner.

No.

[MD Longhorn]

Absent intent... this is nothing.

Which INT rule, exactly, are you guys using to rule interference here?

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Absent intent... this is nothing.

Which INT rule, exactly, are you guys using to rule interference here?

Which ASA interference rule that requires intent are you using to say this is nothing?

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Which ASA interference rule that requires intent are you using to say this is nothing?

I'm saying this is not interference at all. Again, which rule would you say she broke here?

If, however, the runner ran into a fielder that already had the ball with the intent of preventing a double play, we have something different.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

I'm saying this is not interference at all. Again, which rule would you say she broke here?

If, however, the runner ran into a fielder that already had the ball with the intent of preventing a double play, we have something different.

I actually haven't answered Mike's question (yet). I was responding to you because you said it is nothing unless there was intent. I was wondering how you came to that.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Dakota

I actually haven't answered Mike's question (yet). I was responding to you because you said it is nothing unless there was intent. I was wondering how you came to that.

Fair enough.

There is only one possible rule this player may have broken, and you don't generally see it called when a player gets the ball immediately before contact... 8-7-Q (which is NOT part of the interference rule) applies if a runner remains upright and crashes into a fielder that has the ball - but it generally meant to be used when the fielder clearly had possession of the ball and the runner knew it... but tried to knock them over. I wouldn't use this rule here... but might not argue with a partner who did (at least, not until post-game ) The rule doesn't SAY intentionally... but in any rules discussions I've had at camps or clinics, "crashes" generally implies some intent on the runner's part.

[Dakota]

If presented with this situation live on the field, I have no doubt I would have ruled as Cecil stated, and the rule would be 8-7-J-1.

However, it is usually true that when Mike posts a situation, there is something requiring a bit more thought, and since this IS a rules discussion board, you do bring up a good point.

Nonetheless, I doubt the rules writers intended to create an unprotected gap between "attempting to field a batted ball" (J-1) and "attempting to throw the ball" (J-2).