Quote:
Originally posted by WestMichBlue
For the longest time I have been unable to understand the statement ball is closer to fielder than runner when applied to an Interference/Obstruction judgment. I cannot visualize it, and I have been unable to apply it in a game. So please help.
Most rule books say that a fielder has to have the ball or about to receive the ball. About to receive is then interpreted as the ball being closer to the fielder than the runner. Now please explain to me, using laws of physics, how a ball thrown at 50-60mph is closer to a fielder than a runner traveling at 5-10 mph - yet is not in the hands of the fielder before the runner arrives. It seems to me you have just negated the about the receive clause. Therefore, if the fielder does not have the ball when the runner arrives, you have obstruction.
Situation: 18U tournament, no outs, R1 on 1B, new batter, obvious bunt situation. Called play: on pitch F3 breaks for home, F4 goes to 1B, pitchout, and quick throw to F4. F4 is now between R1 and 1B, 1-2 in front of the base facing 2B, awaiting the throw. R1 collides with and is stopped by F4 a fraction of a second before F4 catches the throw and tags R1.
In my mind, F4 was about to receive the throw when R1 was physically stopped. Thus her position is legitimate and R1 should be called out. But it is obvious that the ball was not closer than R1, so I called obstruction and protected R1 back to 1B. (Then had to justify my call to the coach.)
If I were writing the rules, I would get rid of (the indefensible) about to receive clause and say if you havent got the ball, git the h--- out of the way or be called for obstruction.
WMB
[Edited by WestMichBlue on Jul 1st, 2003 at 10:26 AM]
|
Forget physics, try using a yardstick! This is so simple, everyone overthinks this thing, then ends up going to extremes trying to rationalize it.
"About to receive" is in effect any time the thrown ball becomes closer to the defender in question than the approaching runner.
Yes, 99.9999999999999999999999999999999% of the time the ball will beat the runner, no question. At the ASA convention last year, it was moved and defeated that ASA change to the ISF rule which requires possession of the ball to block a runner's basepath or face an obstruction call.
What many people do not realize is that just because the ball gets there first does not mean the fielder actually gains possession of the ball. However, like the runner going to 2B on an attempted double play, the fielder doesn't just go "poof" and disappear when they drop, muff or miss a throw.
It is not a remote thought to believe that this change will come up again this year in Kissimminee, FL. Personally, I'd like to see the ISF rule adopted, but I believe the coaches, players and possibly umpires will be shocked at the number of obstruction calls they will then have.