Quote:
Originally Posted by sbatten
R1 argued that since F1 had attempted to make a play on the ball, R1 should be given a clear path to 3B and F6 should not have been in his way. R1's argument, as I understand it, was that he didn't feel interference applied because F6 was not making an attempt to field the ball at the time of the collision, F1 was.
|
I'm getting hung up on this part here... At the time of the collision, where was the ball? Was it by F1, or F6?
My thought on this is that if F6 was nowhere near the ball, then he was
not in the act of fielding a batted ball. The way I'm picturing it was that at the time of the collision, the ball was still a second or two away from F6.
If, in your judgment, F6 was just about to field the ball, then I have no problem whatsoever with your call. But if the ball still had a ways to go and F6 was not in the act of fielding the batted ball, then I'd have OBS.
Could you give some more details? It's sounding like a HTBT (had to be there) kind of a call.
R1 was definitely incorrect in saying that because F1 had attempted to make a play, a clear path must be given. That's just a bunch of silliness, but hey... What do you expect?
You're asking the question on the right forum. I haven't seen you before, so welcome!
I also appreciate the fact that you've got your terminology straight. Makes a good impression upon this board.
