INT--a sticky wicket

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by TussAgee11

Sure. F6 has the ball, and in the sitch provided, then tagged the runner. Doesn't sound to me like F6 was impeded at all by the runner. Seems like F6 contacted the runner, and not the other way around.

Some may argue a smart play by the runner to distract F6 into not getting R3 at the plate, and taking off the force for any subsequent play at the plate.

The original situation states that the runner ran into F6, and then after that, F6 tagged him with the ball. That sure sounds like the runner initiated the contact to me. If INT should have been called, it would have to be immediately, and would have nullified the run.

I not so sure I agree about protection for the fielder making a throw, after successfully fielding the batted ball. What about that now famous play where Albert Belle clocked Vina in the baseline the moment he fielded the ball, thus preventing any further play on Vina's part? There certainly was no interference called on that. I would be more likely to rule as Ace did, since by rule, the fielder is protected only while fielding a batted ball. Rule 7.09 (g,h,l).