Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
I am going to throw this out for sugar and giggles:
I am going to start at the point where the B/R realizes that the Pitch was Ball 4 and that she is entitled to at least 1B and to continue on to 2B at her own risk. F1 does not have the Ball when F1 and the B/R collide. I do not care about the Runner on 3B who is now trying to score. In my humble opinion why are we considering charging B/R with Interference against F1 when we should be considering charging F1 with Obstruction against the B/R?
MTD, Sr.
|
The way I read your situation is different than the original post. In the OP there is the appearance of a play about to occur at the plate. In that case there are rules and rule supplements covering that situation that call for at least 1 out. In the situation you propose, if there is not an apparent play at the plate, I would agree with your obstruction call.
Completely inverse play: A couple of years ago there was a case study, maybe presented at ASA clinic; Catcher retrieved a dropped 3rd strike and was standing on the plate in act of throwing to 1st base when runner from 3rd slides into catcher and knocks her down. The instruction was this was interference with a fielder in possession of the ball in the act of throwing. Runner sliding in is out.