Quote:
Originally posted by DG
We are splitting hairs here. If a runner touches a catcher up the line, and he could have avoided the catcher, an umpire could rule interference, ie because he could have avoided, but did not, so he intended to do so. Intent would be umpire's judgement because we can't read his mind.
|
If the runner is running in his normal manner, to his base, I don't have interference... in fact, unless certain conditions are being met, I could have obstruction. Except when conditions are met (depending on org. - could be posession, could be "about to receive"), defense has NO RIGHT to have a runner make a decision to alter his path..
Even if the fielder is moving into the path to field the throw, it's probably only a train wreck.
To rule intentional interference, I would have to see the runner alter his direct path to the base AND determine that he is doing it for the purpose of interfereing..... MY JUDGEMENT
Sat Apr 03, 2004, 10:19am
Hybrid Mode
