Quote:
Originally posted by Jim Porter
Quote:
Originally posted by Kaliix
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.
|
So, then, you're saying the proper course of action is to call interference on mere contact whether or not it actually interfered with a fielder's attempt to field the ball? And you're saying that's clear and unambiguous? Show me.
|
Kaliix: I'm on Jim's side that minimal contact doesn't
prove interference. All "The Book" says is: "It is interference by a ... runner when: He fails to avoid a fielder who is attempting to field a batted ball." "To avoid" is not really that "clear or unambiguous."
But I'm interested in a much more important point. In light of today's political environment, I insist that the rules be re-written to say that the runner is out when "he or she" fails to avoid a fielder...."