Quote:
Originally posted by CecilOne
Sounds like no OBS, no INT.
Could be INT if the BR did anything intentional to reduce the fielder's ability to get the ball or if the BR did anything unintentional within the "fielding a batted ball" limits. Then it's a question of how you interpret the limits of "fielding a batted ball", step and reach or whatever, etc.
The fielder still being able to make a play doesn't matter because if some INT occurs, the BR is out, ball is dead and other runners might be affected.
|
Cecil, the point I have tried to make (and that Dave is following) is that the standard for the limit of fielding a batted ball is
the fielder still being able to make an out. That standard is listed in the rules in reference to interfering with a deflected batted ball; the "step and reach" appears no where but in the minds of baseball gurus. I think you are thinking Dave meant it is a delayed call while we find out; the interference is, of course, a dead ball, so the judgement has to be made at the time of the interference.
Mcrowder and Josh, as long as the interference rule protects the fielder, then obstruction cannot be ruled. It is a clear standard that interference trumps obstruction, and the obstruction definition provides the exception for a fielder fielding a batted ball. It
doesn't except if the ball is deflected or muffed, it states fielding a batted ball. I submit we have to use the definitions in the book with consistency, rather than look to baseball standards (a la step and a reach) to apply when the ruling we question isn't specifically stated. Distance isn't a factor noted in the book, just the ability to still make an out.