I'm going to wrap up my part of this discussion with the following
Quote:
Originally posted by greymule
At no point in time has the "about to receive" been about or a determining factor in whether there is an interference call to be made.
POE #13 (2002 book): "Crashing into a fielder with the ball (interference): . . . the runner must be called out if he remains on his feet and crashes into a defensive player holding the ball or waiting to apply a tag, or if the defensive player is about to receive a thrown ball."
That looks like a determining factor to me. If in fact the "about to receive" clause has to do only with obstruction and not crashes, then ASA should not have listed it under a "crash/interference" POE and then gone on to say how the "interference" should be called. How can anyone read POE #13 and think that "about to receive" does not apply to interference?
I will concede that the wording is there. However, I believe it was there only as a compliment to the obstruction rule which permitted the fielder to be in the basepath without obstructing a runner under that condition.
The wording is no longer there, hence not worth the discussion.
It also seems to me that if ASA specifically stated that they deleted the word "deliberately" so that umpires would not have to judge what was in a runner's mind, they were tacitly conceding that umpires had indeed been trying to judge what was in a runner's mind. If they weren't supposed to be doing that, then ASA had misled them by using the word "deliberately." The umpires weren't misinterpreting; the were simply following the rule as written.
I believe the word was eliminated because to some point it became redundant as the runner's actions usually speak for themselves. Also, it probably confused some umpires who thought they had to read a player's mind to make the ruling.
I agree, though, that you know it when you see it.
As far as "wreck" goes, while it's true that if it's interference or obstruction, it's not a wreck, it's still possible to have a severe, violent collision that is neither interference nor obstruction. That's a wreck.
|
Can't be as if the wreck as you describe it occurs and the fielder is not in possesion of the ball, it must be obstruction. Part of the reason for the rull change was to get the fielders out of harm's way. Remember, an obstruction call is not a penalty to the defense, but just allowing the offense to obtain what they would have without impediment. The ASA didn't help us with this change as the wording to the Umpire's Manual part was not changed to reflect the new rule. Yes, collisions happen and they are all HTBT, but when it comes right down to it, there is no reason to protect a runner impeded by a fielder who is in the wrong place at the wrong time.
JMHO,