Quote:
Originally Posted by youngump
There are four ways you can go on this play.
A) Obstruction on the catcher. She was not in the act of fielding a batted ball and she did not have possession of the ball. And you believe that the rulebook merely has an editorial error to include fielding a thrown ball.
B) Obstruction on the catcher. She was not in the act of fielding a batted ball and she did not have possession of the ball and she was not fielding a thrown ball.
C) No obstruction on the catcher. Possession means having secure possession like what would be required for a catch or tag. This might be backed up by pointing out that the lookback rule differentiates between possession and control.
D) No obstruction on the catcher. No possession but believing that fielding a thrown ball is described by exactly this situation.
I'm not at all sure, but my inclination is that C or D makes more sense in the flow of the game. It sounds like you're in A?
|
Well, C doesn't make sense by itself - no obstruction... but then defining possession - in this play catcher doesn't have possession by that definition... so why no obs?
A is correct. This is not opinion.