Quote:
Originally posted by Warren Willson
As I read the play presented, the following circumstances existed:- The ball was batted,
- the fielder took an unusual course to intercept the ball, and
- the ball, fielder and runner all arrived together at the same point.
Unless I have misunderstood the situation, I'd normally rule that as INTERFERENCE under OBR 7.08(b) and 7.09(L)
|
I think you misunderstood the play as it occurred, Warren.
- The ball was batted
- The fielder initiated his direct line toward the slow moving ball
- The runner crossed the path of ball and the path the fielder needed to get to the ball
- The fielder veered slightly toward the runner and slightly away from the ball in order to cause contact
- Although fielder, runner, and ball were all proximate, the ball was not "at the same point." The ball was perhaps 5-6ft to the left of F6 and perhaps 2-3 feet in front of the basepath ran by R2.
- While the ball was close enough to the play for BU to think F6 was in his normal path to field the ball, it was obvious from F6's slight change in his path that his intent was to cause the contact to draw the interference call rather than to continue his attempt to field the ball.
Because of the BU's proximity to the ball, his need to watch and avoid the ball as it rolled past him, and the relative proximity of the fielder and runner to the ball, he was unable to recognize the "veered" path of the fielder. After all, BU did not see the original location or path initiated by F6 as that was established while BU had his back to moving fielder. When you are in C position, are you always certain of the exact location of F6 at the beginning of a play?
While I felt BU had the opportunity to witness F6 make his "veer", he did not. While I "guessed" that BU had witnessed that veering action, I didn't need to do that. Interference is not a dedicated call; a call designated to any specific official. Instead of "guessing" that BU had witnessd the needed information, I should have made the call. Doing so would have eliminated the judgment of "guessing" what BU saw, and the call would have been judged purely on the aspects of the play itself.
Anytime BU has his back to an immediately occurring play, the PU is "guessing" at what the BU saw after he turned as opposed to what he missed while his back was turned. Thus, you are leaving the correct call up to a "guess" rather than having certainty the action is being judged on all aspects of the play.
If it's proper for PU to make a call for obstruction---as some have said---then why would it be improper to do for interference? Both situations involve action relative to the decision that occurred while the BU had his back to the play despite BU's location being more proximate to the play.
In this play, the PU had to "guess" on what action the BU did or did not see.
There is no reason to leave the proper decision to a "guess."
The PU is looking at the play throughout its duration, and there is no reason why PU should not make the call. The call is not designated as responsibility of the BU under any set of mechanics I've ever seen. If you are aware of any mechanics designating this call to the BU, then please cite those mechanics.
Freix