Quote:
|
Originally Posted by MrUmpire
There could have been interference that the defense worked their way around, no?
Look at the new FED obstruction interpretation. Even if the runner managed to reach around and touch the back of a bag, if he was "denied access" to that portion of the bag closest to him, we have obstruction.
Why couldn't there be interference and yet an out?
I'm not a pro, but I was taught an immediate dead ball meant an immediate dead ball.
|
I'm not sure what you're asking.
The FED obstruction rule is not an apt comparison, since it's a delayed dead ball. There can be obstruction which, if it doesn't result in an out, we later ignore.
As you point out, running lane interference is an immediate dead ball. So we can't have a play where there's interference and then the defense gets an out.
However, as I pointed out, I still have to judge that there's interference. That judgment is sometimes immediate, for obvious cases, and sometimes takes a second, in borderline cases.
In the TWP I was responding to, the throw deflected off the BR and F3 caught it. I won't call interference here because I don't think it's interference. So it's not correct to describe the case as "interference followed by an out."
In a case of genuine interference, I will kill the play and call it, so the defense still will not make an out (since the play's dead). So again, we will not have interference followed by an out.
Even if I'm very slow to call interference, the play is technically dead at the time of interference, no matter when I call it. So by rule, we cannot have interference followed by an out on this play.
But perhaps I haven't answered your question?