Quote:
Originally Posted by EsqUmp
Okay. So rather than "standing" let's say she continues to "run." Why is running not an "act" but "laying" on the ground after just missing a ball is not an "act?" Are they both not continuing to do what they were legally permitted to do a moment earlier?
|
Because you are comparing apples and oranges....
Despite what many people think, Interference and Obstruction ARE NOT the direct opposite of each other.
Per definitions, (most) interference violations require an "act" of interference, obstruction violations do not require an "act" of obstruction, just that the runner is hindered by a defensive player without the ball or fielding a batted ball.
If you don't like that, lobby to have the rule changed. Until then, make the ruling prescribed by the ruleset you are working that day.