Quote:
Originally posted by blarson
If the catcher is up the line w/ no ball, and the ball isn't on its way assuming throw from infielder or the ball had yet to reach the infield assuming throw from outfield, F2 has no business being in the line. That would be obstruction.
|
And I would've been the only umpire I know who would've called it had that been the case. But since the ball was in the air and the catcher caught it less than a second after the runner stopped, I'm confident I made the right call.
My point was that obstruction/interference calls like this get argued to death on these boards, but in the leagues that I do, players constantly block the base line, step out of the box on steals, run in the way of fielders fielding batted balls, and so on. And the umps I see rarely (or never) call it.
If we want consistency, intent may not be the main issue, I think the main issue is that umpires don't think about what the players are supposed to be doing and recognizing when someone is not doing what he's supposed to be doing.
If a player veers out of the base path toward the fielder on the double play and as a result he gets hit with a thrown ball, he interfered. If the runner is required to be in the lane on a bunt, and he runs out of the lane and is hit by the ball, it's interference. If the on-deck batter stands between the fielder with the ball and the fielder at the plate and is hit with the ball, it's interference. They aren't where they are supposed to be or where they need to be.
As far as intent, if in these cases, the runner tripped or was desperately trying to get out of the way, then there might be an exception.
The one case where interference is called is when a runner is hit by a batted ball. Everyone understands that because intent is not an issue. I think the rules would be easier if intent was not the issue.