|
I was in 'C' so I was right there. The way I saw it, if the SS had continued straight to the ball without hesitation he would have passed at least three-four feet behind the retreating R2. I figured that since R2 had cleared the straight-line path needed by the SS to make the play and was headed away from that path, it became incumbent upon the SS to realize that he could continue unhindered. I have a tough time making an interference call if the runner has cleared the path needed by the fielder making a play. And that for me is the crux of the matter. If the relative positions of R2/SS were reversed, with R2 running into the SS's path, then yes I call that interference. In the reverse situation it is absolutely incumbent upon the runner to avoid the fielder making the play.
|