|
Speaking FED
If I follow your logic, the runner on 2B is awarded 3B on the obstruction call therefore no interference could have happened (assuming no USC). That makes sense, yet Mike's position that you still have a live ball situation during which interference is a violation, also makes sense.
What then is a application of the sentence in the FED book (8-3 or 8-4) that says "interference takes precedence over obstruction?"
I am wondering how I would call the following. Batter hit soft fly over 1B and tries to turn it into a double. Tangles with F3, regains balance and continues to 2B. Throw from F9 to F4 beats runner; runner colides with F4 (no slide)causing F4 to drop ball.
Had there not been obstruction, it would not have been close at 2B and no interference would have occured. Can the umpire make that judgement? Or do we award the runner 2B and negate the interference call?
If we are going to call her out for interference, then the situation changes if the runner simply stops and lets F4 walk up and tag her. She can not be put out between the bases where obstruction occured so she is going to be awarded 2B (or returned to 1B). Does that same rule ("can not be put out . . .) prevent us from calling her out for interference?
Now - Roger - tell us about that catcher's balk!
WMB
|