Loading
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 12 of 12

Thread: Hard contact... obstruction? ejection?

  1. #11
    I can talk softball all day ctfastpitch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    169
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    I agree completely on situations 2 & 3, but I have a question on situation #1. Typically when there is a potential play from RF to 1B, the runner is running through the bag, similar to a ball to the infield. If she is rounding the bag on that play, it seems to me she is attempting to interfere with the play from RF (especially since the same kid was involved in all three instances of contact).

    How would this situation be any different from a ground ball to deep SS and having the runner round the bag at 1B and run into F3 receiving the throw from F6?

  2. #12
    MTR
    MTR is offline
    Certified softball maniac MTR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    1,557
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 133 Times in 104 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ctfastpitch View Post
    I agree completely on situations 2 & 3, but I have a question on situation #1. Typically when there is a potential play from RF to 1B, the runner is running through the bag, similar to a ball to the infield. If she is rounding the bag on that play, it seems to me she is attempting to interfere with the play from RF (especially since the same kid was involved in all three instances of contact).

    How would this situation be any different from a ground ball to deep SS and having the runner round the bag at 1B and run into F3 receiving the throw from F6?

    Doesn't make any difference, there was no play, so the base is opened up for the BR/R. F3 must not impede the now R without the ball. Runners round bases all the time, sometimes just to see if a throw can be drawn.

    Maybe the contact was intentional and meant to give the fielder the hint that she cannot be there. As long as the runner did not deviate from her path, I see nothing wrong with it. Now, if the contact was, IMJ, malicious, there may be a need for a substitute.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Segment -- Burn -- Conversion --