Sal,
I too am curious about how this protest will be decided.
A couple of other points that support my opinion that this should be properly ruled Obstruction:
From the (OBR) Rule 2.0 Defrinition of Obstruction:
Quote:
|
...After a fielder has made an attempt to field a ball and missed, he can no longer be in the “act of fielding” the ball. ...
|
From J/R:
Quote:
|
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.
|
From JEA:
Quote:
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 in the subject video clip, it appeared to me that the runner was impeded by the F1 well before he gained possession of the ball and well before the F1 was within reach of the ball. The
contact didn't occur until the F1 was within "a step and a reach", but by my read, the fielder does not regain his protection because he has gotten "close" to the deflected loose ball he is chasing. And contact is not required for there to be Obstruction - in my view, the runner was obstructed well before the contact
JM