Quote:
Originally Posted by David Emerling
This brings up another interesting point. Can a fielder lose his protection by not making a direct effort to field the ball? Rather, he hangs back with the clear intent of "obstructing" the runner's path. In other words, he seems to be using his fielder protection as a tool to hinder the runner. Or, the fielder takes a curiously circuitous path to the ball that hinders a baserunner's progress.
|
The way you worded that, ... sort of.
You say "by not making a direct effort to field the ball".
The rule says nothing about direct. If the fielder is trying to field the ball, no matter how ineptly, and he is the fielder that is protected, then he has the right to field that ball.
Saying "not making a direct effort..." if he, in the umpire's opinion, is not making an effort to field the ball, but instead is TRYING to get in the runners way - now we have obstruction.
The "direct" (vs indirect) is not really the criteria. The moment the fielder is doing something other than fielding the ball, though, he's no longer protected.
(Hence my answer of "sort of")