Quote:
|
Originally Posted by greymule
Couldn't the offensive interference be delayed to see if the defense is able to make the play and possibly get additional outs?
That seems fair on the surface, but delaying the offensive interference call could open a can of worms. If we say that after a runner collides with a fielder and the fielder catches the ball, we wave off interference, there are all kinds of things that could happen still related to the contact. What if the fielder manages to catch the ball but then throws it away because of the contact? Even if the fielder is able to make a throw (say, to 1B) to get an out, a runner on 3B might be able to tag and advance because the fielder was knocked off balance.
There are certain times we can waive interference. Batter interferes with F2 but F2 throws the runner out anyway. Runner on 1B brushes F3 just as the batter hits a popup over 1B but long before the ball reaches its apex. But calling interference immediately on runner interfering with a fielder on a batted ball or a throw prevents all kinds of knots that would be hard to untangle.
|
I agree with you to a point. When we call obstruction type "B", when there is no immediate play on the runner. Don't we have to "untangle" the play once we see what happens and make a judgement call. i.e. situation with R1 stealing on the pitch, batter hits a ball to deep right field. R1 waits to see if the ball is caught and then sees ball go over the fielders head. R1 is then obstructed between 2nd and 3rd and as a result is only able to get to third and the batter is standing on second. Depending on how long it took for the right fielder to retrieve the ball and throw to the infield, doesn't the umpire have to determine where the runners should be placed as a direct result of the obstruction?