|
Hmmm, so a fielder may not verbally impersonate a ...fielder? Bizarre.
OK, to this point I've relied upon the absurdity of this interpretation. Since apparently no one visualizes this play the same way I do, let's look at the logic.
There are several types of obstruction this play is not talking about. It does not cover a fake tag or obstruction with the batter before he becomes a runner. It also does not illustrate any physical obstruction. Do you agree? If so, skip the following paragraph. If not, read on.
This interpretation is about VERBAL obstruction. Therefore, the whole the point of this interpretation is that the fielder obstructed verbally, not physically. The fielder may be off doing cartwheels or a silent Broadway musical on the infield dirt as long as he doesn't physically hinder a runner. That is, the traditional OBR definition of obstruction also fits as a subset of the FED obstruction defintion.
Therefore, let us consider the following example plays which capture all that is relevant in this discussion.
PLAY 1: Batter hits a grounder up the middle, on the 3B side of 2B. F4 physically runs over toward where he might be able to field the ball, behind second base. F4 verbally calls out "I've got it". RULING: All square, of course.
PLAY 2: Batter hits a grounder up the middle, on the 3B side of 2B. F4 physically stays where he is and looks to the sky. F4 verbally calls out "I've got it". RULING: By the FED case play, this is verbal obstruction.
But do you see the inconsistency in the above calls? We call one verbal obstruction, when in fact the only difference between the two is a physical act!
I submit there is no difference between the above plays. The fielder is acting legally in both cases.
P-Sz
[Edited by Patrick Szalapski on Feb 19th, 2001 at 05:53 PM]
|