Is it possible to have contact and no interference? Sure, it's possible and that is what in fact seemed to have happened on the play described in this thread.
Unfortunately, that would involve some sort of delayed interference/play-on-advantage theory type rule which is not yet a rule covering interference. That may be something that could be investigated as a rules change.
The rules as currently written are clear and unambiguous. The runner must avoid the fielder, period. If he does not, ie. he makes contact with the fielder, he has interfered.
I think this makes our jobs easier. If there is contact, it is interference. Kill the play, enforce the penalty. And it is an easy explanation to the coach. Basically, contact=interference. He may not like it, but thems' the rules.
Anyone who enforces this rule differently makes another umpires life difficult if they get the same play afterwards.
Quote:
Originally posted by Jim Porter
Quote:
Originally posted by Kaliix
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.
|
Certainly, there can be interference without contact. Just coming close all by itself can be considered interference if the runner impeded the fielder's attempt to make a play. But you don't subscribe to the notion that there can be contact but no interference?
|