Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Durham
Well boys this was a JC game, Santa Rosa JC @ Consumnes River JC. The play occured in the bottom of the 8th with Consumnes down by one after some time the umpires changed the call from an out to OBS and scored the runner from 3rd and Consumnes won in the 9th. The game is under protest and they have yet to make a decision, so it is obviously not as clear cut as all of you seem to suggest. I'll let you know how the conference rules after they rule. The game was played on March 27. Those of you who know Tony Bloomfield from LA Harbor, he is the Consumnes coach and he was the one that convinced the umpires to change the call based on a different reference.
The other problem I have with the way that many of you are trying to defend OBS, is what do you call when the 2nd baseman boots it, chases it, gets it, then with possesion, the runner runs into the fielder. If I were a coach I would protest anything but obstruction per AR4, if you are telling me that is the way you read it here.
Common Sense and fair play, Interference.
|
Maybe this will help. Here are two authoritative opinions that concur with what you've been told here. The first one is from Evans.
Situations:
The batter hits a ground ball to the second baseman...he deflects the ball and it rolls several feet from him The runner from first collides with the second baseman as he goes after the ball. Is this interference by the runner?
RULING:
On the contrary...this is obstruction by the second baseman. Since he had a chance to field the ball but muffed it out of reach...he may not impede the runner. (According to pro interpretations, a fielder still has a right to field the batted ball if it is in his "immediate reach"...the guideline generally used is “a step and a reach.”
Now here's what Roder says:
A fielder cannot be privileged if he is chasing a batted ball that has been deflected or missed. If, however, he is trying to field a ball that has been deflected by another fielder, he can be privileged.
I don't see how your scenario with the second baseman applies here. In the play we're discussing the pitcher didn't have possession of the ball at the time of the contact. Trying to pull out the old CSFP argument for interference doesn't get it either here.
Tim.