Quote:
Originally posted by CecilOne
My understanding of the original was that F5 had "a legitimate shot at fielding the batted ball". even though he referred to it as "F5's slim chance ".
I didn't think I implied that obstruction is the "opposite of interference", even though I discused both in response to Tap's post. If so, help me see where for future reference.
|
C-one,
Just because I was referencing your post, doesn't necessarily mean I was directing the obstruction/interference comment directly toward you.
There are many people who are still under the impression that if they rule obstruction, there must be some advantage gained by the defense and that just isn't true. The reason you rule obstruction is to protect the runner, not to punish the defense.
I do not think it is a stretch from the wording of the scenario offered to believe that F6 was the defender with the play, not F5.
I use to play with a guy who no matter how close he was to the ball, he usually ended up diving for the ball. More often than not, the ball was more the 5' away from him when it passed him.
We just cannot give this type of player the right of way unless they actually have a play on the ball.
Try to visualize this play. The runner is coming off of 2B. Doesn't have a choice, but to watch the ball. It sounds like the runner watched the ball move toward F6 when F5 decided to lunge at the ball. Even if the runner wasn't watching the ball, F5 would have to be within their range of vision. Unless blind, the only way the runner doesn't see F5 is if they follow the ball to F6. If that is a fact, then F5 didn't have any shot at the ball.
I'll stick with protecting the runner and most likely placing them back at 2B if there was any defender near 3B.