Quote:
Originally posted by kono
Quote:
Originally posted by SamNVa
Really Tom? I don't remember intent being required. Must be that pesky Old-Timer's disease kicking in
SamC
|
My wife tells me it's called CRS 
I'm still having problems with the original interference call - only because it is the obstuction that caused the interference. F3 comes charging in like a bull in a china shop and scares the bejezus out of the runner who attempts to avoid getting steamrolled (okay - I may be exagerating a bit) and bumps the catcher. As long as I don't see intent, I don't think I can find anything more than a train wreck between BR and F2. The "interference" was caused by the obstruction - that has to be the prevailing infraction. If the ball is caught though - it's an out, plain and simple.
-(thickheaded??) Kono
|
Assume F2 is the protected fielder. Then take it in sequence. BR is impeded by F3 - obstruction & delayed dead ball. BR interferes with F2. Dead ball.
That much is clear. How to sort this out is less clear, and depending on how everything went down, could go against either the offense or the defense (IMO).
8-5-B(1)c says the interference takes precedence.
However, if the obstruction caused the interference, then 10-1-L may give you the rule to not enforce the interference because it would be an advantage to the team that caused the situation.