Quote:
|
Originally Posted by MrUmpire
Even a rhetorical question should be based somewhat on reality. The reality is that if the fielder has ball, it has never been interference, while the fielder without the ball impeding the runner depending on timing, has been obstruction.
Now, if he questioned as to whether, in FED, that would be automatic malicious contact, he would be closer to having something to discuss.
|
Wouldn't reality demonstrate that if said fielder has ball, it has never been ruled
obstruction?
In the past, obstruction was never called when a ball was thrown to a fielder in the vicinity of a base for the purpose of making a play. Only in recent years has this idea been changed to require a fielder to first obtain possession of the ball. Obstructionis is also ruled on a fielder diving for a batted ball who miffs and then collides with baserunner. Both of these concepts are now applied to our obstruction play at first base.
This past MLB summer, A-Rod gained possession of 3B after colliding over the top of F5. F5 had possession of the batted ball but was not in position to tag A-Rod. A-Rod landed on 3B and F5's throw to 1B was too late to retire B/R. According to my hypothesis, AROD woulda/shoulda been ruled out for interference with F5's play at 1B. NADA. That play and another were discussed on this website.
----------------------
Rhetorical would be calling the runner out after a collision knocks the ball out of the the defensive players glove. After all, runner was out before the collision. Remember this was about preventing collisions.