Quote:
|
Originally Posted by jwwashburn
I didn't write my original post as coherently as I could have.
|
Made sense to me.
You offer two scenarios:
One: A fair batted ball is delfected by a defensive player, then strikes a runner who could not avoid it.
Two: A fair batted ball is deflected by a defensive player, then the runner susequently interferes with another fielder attempting to play the ball.
Your question is why aren't they both ruled exactly the same way in regards to interference. Why isn't the runner either protected from an interference call on both plays, or called out on both plays?
Maybe my answer was less than coherent!
Somewhere along the evolutionary line of the rules, the rulesmakers have decided that this provides a balance between the responsibilities of both the defense and offense.
Runners are not expected to react and dodge a richocheting ball that takes an unpredictable path and might be impossible to avoid. The defense had their chance to field the ball when it was first touched. Calling a runner out who could not possibly avoid the ball penalizes the offense when they were doing nothing wrong and rewards the defense for erring on the play.
Absent the muff by the defense, there would not have been any runner/ball contact. Don't penalize the runner.
Fielders, on the other hand are generally given absolute protection when attempting to field a batted ball. It is a constant that runs throughout the rules- whenever a play is possible the defense must be given the chance to make it, without interference from the offense.
Absent the contact by the runner, the defense would likely make the play. Penalize the runner.
While both plays are similar in that they involve a deflected ball, they are really different. One involves potential interference with the ball, the other with the fielder. Two different plays with two different standards and rulings.
What was the tag line on the old Bud Light commercial...Why ask why?
