[QUOTE]
Originally posted by bob jenkins
Quote:
Sometimes, an infielder will run "around" the ball to get a better angle on fielding it and throwing to first.
Apparently, that's what the offense saw.
|
Bob, fielders typically loop "around" a ball by staying back and moving sideways (to assure they can get to the ball before it leaves the infield), and then they start to charge it to cut the distance once they are certain they'll be able to get to the ball. They don't usually loop "around" the ball by running forward and then sideways toward the ball.
While I understand what you are saying, Bob, I assure you that was not the case here. The fielder did not "loop." Rather,
he went directly toward the ball, but then he angled slightly into the runner who had already crossed the path of the ball. From where the collision occurred, F6 would have had to make a hard left to get to the ball, although only about 5-6 ft to his left side and only slightly in front of him. The collision, although not violent, was considerable with the fielders falling over each other. I think it was the obviousness of the collision combined with the knowledge that the fielder is supposed to have right-of-way on a batted ball that kept the squelches down.
Still, you bring up a good point.
Sometimes fielders do make a slight loop, however, I'm not protecting a fielder who
chooses to loop into the running path of the runner when the more appropriate route to take ot field the ball was directly to the ball. After all, I suspect the runner knew he had crossed the path of the ball, and he also knew that the fielder was playing well behind the line. Just how far should the runner have to avoid the fielder if the fielder chooses to loop into a collision path with the runner vs. moving directly to field the ball?
With R3 only, would you call interference if F5, who was playing behind the base, charged forward to contact R3 a step in front of 3B when the batted ball was obviously a soft, humped back liner reasonably beyond 3B in fair territory---and obviously F5's catch to make? Certainly F5 could claim he was interfered with in his attempt to field the ball. IMO, the fielder needs to take a reasonable path to field that batted ball, and he can't intentionally attempt to run into the runner for the purpose of drawing the interference call if taking an unreasonable path to field the ball.
The fielder has the right to field the ball, but that shouldn't mean that he's provided a "halo" around himself when he is not moving directly to the ball. It was obvious from the PU position that the fielder's primary effort WAS NOT to field this batted ball, but was to cause a collision. While I thought the BU also had time to recognize that, I was wrong. The BU had his back to the action too long before turning with the ball. That's certainly not the BU's fault, and it's certainly not a reason for PU not to make the proper call when he sees it.
Bottom line, when the BU starts with his back to the action of the players involved, there is really no way to know exactly what he did and didn't see after he turns. PU should jump on interference when he feels it has occurred and when his partner has had his back to ANY of the action associated with the play.
Hmmmm......isn't that really supported by the concept of angle over distance?
Freix