View Single Post
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Wed May 10, 2006, 10:09am
CecilOne CecilOne is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: The Land Of The Free and The Home Of The Brave (MD/DE)
Posts: 6,425
Quote:
Originally Posted by rwest
I agree that if the umpire deems the fielder in the act of fielding then we have interference. Does the reasonableness of fielding the ball every come into consideration? Here's an example. R1 on first base. Slow roller hit up the first base line. F3 moves up into the base path of R1. The ball stops well short of F3 who then has to move up to get to the ball. Do you consider F3 in the act of fielding when she moved up? If so, you have interference when R1 collides with F3. But my contention is that a smart F3 might obstruct the runner but claim she was in the act of fielding. If to field the ball she needed to move further up first base line then I think we have obstruction. In other words, do you protect a fielder who is within the runners base path and they have no reasonable right to be there (i.e no chance of fielding the ball in that position)?
"In the act" includes the approach to the ball from where the fielder was positioned. If the fielder intentionally impeded the runner in the meantime, the only recoure is probably UC.
__________________
Officiating takes more than OJT.
It's not our jobs to invent rulings to fit our personal idea of what should and should not be.
Reply With Quote