Quote:
Originally posted by Tap
Maybe it comes down to whether F5 had a legitimate or reasonable chance to make the play, or was merely showing good effort. The ball was hit slowly, but it really was F6's play, though F5 had a chance to make the play I suppose, as the ball went to the side of and under his glove.
I seem to recall something in the ASA case book stating that only one fielder can be protected in terms of interference -- maybe that principle would also indicate that if F5 is not that fielder than he cannot be in the base path without risking an obstruction call.
|
I know this is a U-trip play, however, since ASA has been raised, I will be speaking ASA.
Only one fielder receives the protection. If the umpire believes F5 deserved that protection, fine. But since the collision happened after the fielder made the effort and failed, it cannot be interference unless the umpire believed the fielder still had a chance to make an out. I think the scenario makes it clear that opportunity had passed. And though the fielder cannot go poof, it is not the same as a runner interferring in the play as the results of such calls are incomparable.
I believe obstruction is the call. Remember, you are not awarding anyone anything, just protecting the runner from being put out after being dropped by a defender. If you thought the runner would have been easily put-out at 3B (assuming someone covered the base), the runner stays at 2B.
Quote:
|
The runner probably made a bad decision not to go around F5 and maybe he should suffer the consequences, but he may have feared an "out of the basepath" call.
|
Since the scenario states the F5 "lunged" for the ball, the runner probably wasn't even aware of the imminent danger F5 presented. And it is quite obvious there was no basepath violation.