[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by gslefeb

I'm trying to understand the "attempting to play" a ball be an infielder concept.

I had an umpire explain it to me this way:

1. R2, ball hit to short stop, the ball, SS and R2 arrive at the same time, therefore SS was in the act of playing the ball, interference on R2.

2. R2, ball hit to short stop - but SS has to charge the ball; as he is charging the ball R2 runs into him. The ump said no interference as SS was not in the act of fielding.

3. R2, ball hit to short stop - SS gets in R2's path and waits for the ball, R2 collides with SS (ball is still some 20 feet away); The ump said no interference as SS was in the act of fielding.

I disagree with 2 and 3; Does he have the rulings correct?

The umpire was wrong on 2 and 3. (I assume you left out a "not" in #3)