Quote:
|
Originally Posted by GarthB
There is a major difference between the example you site and most types of offensive interference. In type B obstruction no one is preventing a play from occuring. The fielder is free to do his job. Interference, by its very nature, hinders an actual play. It is much more difficult to access what "might" have happened, thus play is halted and the penalty enforced.
|
But with type B obstruction, you have to wait to see what happens sometimes many seconds later before you actually enforce the obstruction. With Interference you would be able tell within at most a couple of seconds if the interference affected the play.
An example of where we all may choose to ignore interference: R1 and two away. The batter hits towards F4 who is playing deep, R1 times his run so that he runs directly in front of F4 a micro-second before the ball arrives. If F4 is unsuccessful to pick up the ball the umpire would have to judge whether R1 was trying to hinder F4 and then call interference. However, if F4 did pick up the ball and turn the double play in all likelihood the umpire will call nothing.
Because in this instance the timing of the play is so short, the umpire possibly wouldn't have time to call time before F4 has already started turning the double play.
I'm simply saying, wouldn't it make sense to delay the interference call until you are certain that it actually takes place? Which as you say is in the process of taking place and wouldn't be more then a second or two.
That way it doesn't penalize the defense for plays that they may make. I'm not saying we give them more then they deserve but give them a chance to do better then the default penalty.