Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dacodee
JM,
Knowing what I know now, I would have called interference on the runner. F6 did not intentionally run into the runner. He was just going after the ball.
At the time, I don't think there was anything he could've done for me to change the no-call. I felt the runner did nothing wrong and there was only accidental contact (no harm, play on).
I brought it up in my association meeting and there were mixed opinions. However, no one thought F6 obstructed the runner. Either, no-call or interference on runner. Since there were two outs already, runner's out and inning over.
Thanks,
DAC
|
You made it sound different in the original post. You even said the runner was trying to avoid the fielder. It sounded as though F6 actually chased down the runner to contact him as he was passing by. The fact that you did not change the call also indicated that you were certain there was no interference. Now you are telling us something different.
Also, it would not be "accidental" contact, it would be perhaps "incidental" contact, which is different.