Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Paul L
I posted a play like this on the baseball board a few years ago. Batter hit a would-be two hopper to a charging shortstop. Runner from second was on a collision course with the shortstop. Shortstop, in my judgment in order to avoid a collision, stops and backs up a step, catching the ball after the third hop. By the time he could throw to F3, BR had crossed the bag and R2 was at third. But absent the interference, again in my judgment, shortstop would have fielded the ball on the second hop and BR would have been out by a couple of steps.
The consensus of the big dogs, both on the board and in my association, was that the runner did not interfere, that the shortstop gave up his right to field the ball on two hops by stopping, even if to avoid an imminent collision. In other words, a collision is required, at least in baseball, according to umps more experienced than I.
Requiring a collision is dangerous, and I prefer the softball interpretation, at least for players who do not shave.
|
Here is where it gets dicey and perpetuates a softball/baseball myth that a player is out for running in front of a defender attempting to field a batted ball. Some weaker umpires will buy into that and make the call based on the myth assuming that they believe this is the path of least resistence.
A strong umpire will watch the fielder and judge his intent. If, in the umpire's judgment, the fielder has made a conscientious decision to stay put and play the ball, most likely it is not going to be INT. If the umpire believes the runner's actions are forcing the defender to into an undesired position to play the ball, most likely that is going to be INT.
What we cannot expect is a runner to forfeit their responsibility to attempt to advance simply because a batted ball is going to cross their path in the vicinity of a defender.