|
Obstruction requires that the fielder not be in the act of fielding the ball. So how does mbyron justify placing the runner back on the base if the fielder intentionally pushes him off while moving to a fly ball? Unsportsmanlike conduct/malicious contact? Or is the act of fielding interrupted for the moment when F6 is pushing R2 off second? Or is it just common sense and fair play? Better theories welcomed.
I'd go with the fielding-interrupted theory, although USC might also be present. As the mbyon camp has argued in this thread, common sense and fair play, attractive as they may be, have no rule support.
Umpjong's "entitlement" argument is weak, but not completely specious. But his interpretation of entitlement to mean that R2 cannot be forcibly moved off his base, even if unintentional, seems designed to prop up his common sense and fair play theory with any rule that arguably supports his position. (BTW, his strident tone and use of the adverb "clearly" undermine his persuasiveness.) Entitlement here means in preference to some other runner.
The Gant/Hbrek play is different because by the time Hbrek might be forcing Gant off the base, he is no longer fielding the ball, having caught it a quarter-second before, and thus is subject to an obstruction call.
Rule 7.11, that an offensive team member must give a fielder space to make a play, seems generally to apply to players other than runners and batters. They have more specific rules that apply to them, such as runners on base do not interfere with a fielder if unintentional (7.08(b) comment, paragraph 2). But nice find!
So play the bounce, says I. But I'll be looking closely for the fielder realizing that a runner on base is in his path and not making a reasonable attempt to avoid contact. If contact is truly inadvertent, play on, and runner better do his job of re-establishing contact with his base before the fielder catches the ball and tags him with it. That's baseball (7.08(c)).
This is a fascinating discussion.
|