Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy
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.
|
That's funny (or sad) because the definition of "OBSTRUCTION" begins with, "The act []." This is why I say umpires can't learn rules if they don't learn definitions.
Beyond that, people are defining "act" differently based on whether it is obstruction or interference.