|
Sounds like a lot of people are really saying, "As long as the runner does 'what she is supposed to,' there isn't interference."
Should we apply this to R1 who runs in a straight line directly into F4 fielding a batted ball? Her "act" is running. Colliding with F4 isn't an "act" it is just a consequence of her "non-act" of running, according to the logic we hear.
So if F6 dives for a ball that just gets by her, is she immediately committing obstruction on R2 (assuming she was actually hindered) because she is no longer in the "act" of fielding a batted ball?
Seems to be a lot of contradiction and applying the "what's she supposed to do " philosophy, that so many argue against.
__________________
Kill the Clones. Let God sort them out.
No one likes an OOJ (Over-officious jerk).
Realistic officiating does the sport good.
|