[Kaliix]

I think that calling it any other way than the way it is written in the book is wrong.

Here's why:

The rule states the runner has interfered if "he fails to avoid a fielder who is attempting to field a batted ball..."

Since the rule states that the runner must avoid contact, any contact, however slight, is against the rules. It should always be called because the runner is trying to gain an advantage for the offense by running as close as possible to the fielder, with out actually contacting him, to try and disrupt his attempt at fielding the ball. Either that or they just don't know or care about the rule, but in any case, the result is a legal attempt at interference without actually interfering (by making contact).

Since there is a definite advantage gained by coming close to a fielder, there should be a resulting penalty if contact is actually made.

In certain cases, I am for the advantage theory in not making certain calls. This is not one of them. If contact is made, the resulting penalty keeps the runners at their last legally aquired base at the time of interference. In the game in question, if the contact, however slight, was ignored then you just allowed the run to score when it should not have. Since contact was made, the penalty should be enforced and the R3 should remain at third.

The runners remaining on their base is a key point. The onus is on the runners to avoid fielders making plays. If they don't, they should receive the appropriate penalty of the out and the runners remaining where they were at the TOI.

There is no provision in the rule for incidental contact, nor should there be since there can be an advantage gained by just coming close.

Originally posted by Jim Porter

Oh, sure it is. You heard Peter's estimate. A couple of us have even admitted it on this board. So, right or wrong, it is being called that way. Amateur umpires everywhere are creating their own kind of delayed dead ball to see if contact is merely incidental or if it truly interferes with the fielder's attempt to make a play.

You can get away with a slight delay because seldom is the initial interference call heard over the excitement of a play anyway. So you just kill play as soon as you know whether the fielder was interfered with or not -- usually a second or so after the contact -- not much time at all.

I'm not trying to muddy any waters. I know very well how interference is called and enforced. I just wanted to discuss how many umpires aren't doing it by the book, and whether how they are doing it is actually a good idea -- because I actually think it is.

[Edited by Jim Porter on Aug 14th, 2004 at 01:29 AM]