ASA Interference?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Has anyone actually read 8.7.Q?

[robbie]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Has anyone actually read 8.7.Q?

I don't do ASA. Please share.

[vcblue]

Crash. Plan and simple. No intent needed. A runner cannot run into a fielder in possession of the ball. In this scenario this is only an out.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by vcblue

Crash. Plan and simple. No intent needed. A runner cannot run into a fielder in possession of the ball. In this scenario this is only an out.

It's not that plain and simple. By RS #13, a crash involves a fielder who has the ball and is waiting to apply a tag. In this scenario, the fielder was not attempting to tag the runner, so I don't believe you can call this a crash. If TPTB want to rule this an out (as well as the alternative scenario that Tom mentioned with a runner running into a fielder who has the ball and is looking at another runner to freeze him/her near the base before turning and throwing to retire the BR at first), they should modify RS #13 so that it doesn't sound like crash interference only applies when a fielder is waiting to tag the oncoming runner.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Manny A

It's not that plain and simple. By RS #13, a crash involves a fielder who has the ball and is waiting to apply a tag. In this scenario, the fielder was not attempting to tag the runner, so I don't believe you can call this a crash. If TPTB want to rule this an out (as well as the alternative scenario that Tom mentioned with a runner running into a fielder who has the ball and is looking at another runner to freeze him/her near the base before turning and throwing to retire the BR at first), they should modify RS #13 so that it doesn't sound like crash interference only applies when a fielder is waiting to tag the oncoming runner.

I'll stick with the rule (which apparently no one wants to read as requested) over a RS any day. If you want to live by the RS, you would be condoning collisions as noted in this scenario without penalty.

Coach: Blue, that runner just barreled over my player.
Umpire: Yep.
Coach: But she had the ball.
Umpire: Yep.
Coach: Rule 8.7.Q clearly states the runner cannot do that.
Umpire: Yep, but the RS says it is okay if the defender is not attempting to tag that runner, so all is good here, coach.

Yeah, I dare you to have that conversation

[jmkupka]

Mike,

OC overhears that conversation and politely contributes from the dugout:

"Blue, the Rule Supplements, which are given to clarify any grey areas, state specifically that the fielder must be waiting to apply a tag! This doesn't contradict the rule, only clarifies it for this precise situation."

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by jmkupka

..."Blue, the Rule Supplements, which are given to clarify any grey areas, state specifically that the fielder must be waiting to apply a tag! This doesn't contradict the rule, only clarifies it for this precise situation."

Actually, it doesn't quite say that (the underlined part).

What it does say is that if the fielder is waiting to apply a tag, the runner must be called out. IOW, the "must" is on the umpire, not on the fielder.

Further, later in the RS it at least implies that the "waiting to apply a tag" is not a requirement with the clarification that if the flight of a thrown ball draws the fielder into the path of the runner, it is not a crash. A fielder being drawing into the path of the runner by an errant throw is not waiting to apply a tag, either, so if waiting to apply a tag was a black and white requirement, this clarification would be unnecessary.

Mike's OP scenario has me visualizing a quickly occurring sequence of bobble, control, crash. Hence (apart from a technical rules discussion), this situation could just as easily be ruled interfering with the fielder attempting to field the batted ball.

Regardless, the way I look at it is RS's can never contradict the rule, but if they do, the contradictory part should be ignored (ref: the RS on Obstruction a few years ago that stated that blocking a base without the ball was obstruction, leaving out the small part about the runner actually being impeded). Secondly, the RS on interference in general (#33) makes it reasonably clear that the fielder in the continuous process of fielding the batted ball to attempting a play is protected.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

I'll stick with the rule (which apparently no one wants to read as requested) over a RS any day. If you want to live by the RS, you would be condoning collisions as noted in this scenario without penalty.

Coach: Blue, that runner just barreled over my player.
Umpire: She contacted her... she didn't "barrel over" her.
Coach: But she had the ball.
Umpire: Yep.
Coach: Rule 8.7.Q clearly states the runner cannot do that.
Umpire: Coach, the rule says she can't crash into her. Our rules book clarifies this to mean it is to apply to a fielder waiting to apply a tag.

Yeah, I dare you to have that conversation

This is how my conversation would differ.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

This is how my conversation would differ.

Well, you can bullshit as much as you like, but it doesn't become a good umpire. And the OP clearly states "knocked" down, so that is a bit more than contacted.

Originally Posted by jmkupka

"Blue, the Rule Supplements, which are given to clarify any grey areas, state specifically that the fielder must be waiting to apply a tag! This doesn't contradict the rule, only clarifies it for this precise situation."

What grey area? Rule seem quite clear and straight forward. Another situation where umpires are going out of their way to protect a player who hasn't earned it.

Meanwhile, three damn pages and not one of you have checked the rule, as requested.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Manny A

It's not that plain and simple. By RS #13, a crash involves a fielder who has the ball and is waiting to apply a tag. In this scenario, the fielder was not attempting to tag the runner, so I don't believe you can call this a crash. If TPTB want to rule this an out (as well as the alternative scenario that Tom mentioned with a runner running into a fielder who has the ball and is looking at another runner to freeze him/her near the base before turning and throwing to retire the BR at first), they should modify RS #13 so that it doesn't sound like crash interference only applies when a fielder is waiting to tag the oncoming runner.

We don't always agree... but we sure do here.

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Has anyone actually read 8.7.Q?

The fielder has the ball, and the runner remains upright and runs into her, this is an out for interference. All applicable rules apply to other runners as well.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Has anyone actually read 8.7.Q?

I mentioned that rule above, and why I did not think it applied here. If you think it does, please discuss.