Quote:
Originally posted by CecilOne
ASA. Do you agree that a runner can interfere without contacting either the ball or fielder?
|
Most definitely, since the Definition of Interference says so explicitly.
Quote:
|
For example, on a slow batted ball toward F4, R1 gets to the path of the ball about the same time as the ball. R1 runs between the ball and fielder just as F4 tries to make the play, but F4 holds up because R1 is in the way. Would it make any difference if the pitcher tipped the ball on the way?
|
Did the runner
impede, hinder, or confuse a defensive player attempting to execute a play? Was the impeding, hindering, or confusion caused by
verbal distraction, visual distraction, or any type of distraction which would hinder the fielder in the execution of the play? (Blue text quoted from ASA POE 32.)
These are, of course, judgment questions.
Assume the runner did nothing obviously intentional or different from just running the bases (because that makes the discussion too easy).
In your scenario, the fielder was obviously impeded, definitionally. (The fielder held up "
because R1 is in the way"
Was the fielder unnecessarily intimidated by the "hoof beat" of the runner? If yes, no interference.
Did the fielder have no chance at the ball because the runner was in the way? If yes, interference.
I have called no-contact interference on a runner, and will do it again if I see it. What I ask myself is, "If the fielder had continued the charge on the ball, would there have been contact?" If the answer, in my mind, is "yes," then that is interference, in my judgment. If the answer is "no," then that was a fielder who made a mistake, and there is no interference called. If "maybe," then ... well, probably no interference.