Quote:
Originally posted by IRISHMAFIA
...but there is nothing in the book to support such a call....
|
First, Mike, I agree with your statement above if you use all of the examples, POE, and case plays as to the intent of the rule (a fielder getting in the way, basically).
But "interference" specifically allows verbal interference, so why isn't the same true for obstruction? (A question for the rules committee, I suppose.)
The definition of obstruction says, in part,
Obstruction is the act of a fielder who is not... (yadda, yadda)
... which impedes the progress of a runner ... contact is not necessary...
Did the act of the catcher impede the progress of the runners without contact? Arguably, yes. Sure, it was by creating confusion rather than by being physically in the way.
Would a ruling of obstruction based on this stand up?
Got me. What do you think?