Obstruction or Interference? Tricky call

[PeteBooth]

In my opinion, these type of threads are much more valuable to us then the endless...' what kind of cup do you wear?' drivel.

[/QUOTE]

Bob perhaps this thread can be saved because IMO, it's probably one of the best threads on the internet in quite some time.

You could for all practical purposes had 3 different calls

1. Nothing
2. OBS which was the Final ruling according to the NCAA. Still awaiting an official PRO interp or
3. Interference

All 3 were presented with rules / authoritative opinion etc. and the thread as a whole was enjoyable not only to read but be a part of.

Next time there is a "flame war" perhaps the poster can be directed to a thread that actually serves a useful purpose.

Pete Booth

[BigUmp56]

Originally Posted by PFISTO

Tim,
Hey it's not a point of convincing me as this is only my second year. My posts are only an attempt to add info not to make a statement. I am sitting back and learning here. I respect your opinion and if I gave the impression I was disagreing with you that was not my intent.
Thanks Mike

If I came across a little harsh that wasn't my intention, Mike. Time and time again we see authoritative opinions torn apart and argued against for no real reason other than ego. Here, for the first time in a long while we've had a discussion on a sticky situation where what we consider to be definitive interpretations disagree. The play presented from Harry's site is the first I've ever read that affords a fielder protection after a batted ball has been deflected more than a step and a reach from him. If I'm not mistaken it suggests that a fielder can regain protection in this situation after it was initially lost on the deflection once he gets back to within a step and a reach of the ball. I think I'll ask Rick Roder to take a look at the thread so we can get his opinion on this play.


Tim.

[PFISTO]

This is the response I recieved from Mr Rick Roder
Hi Mike,



The pitcher is chasing a deflected fielding try, so runner has the right of way. It is obstruction in my opinion. Here is the relevant passage from Jaksa/Roder manual:



A fielder is protected if he is trying to field a batted ball, and he is given priority to field it, and he is not chasing a deflected or missed fielding try.



A fielder cannot be protected if he is chasing a batted ball that has been deflected or missed.



Please keep in mind that while Jaksa/Roder defines the act of fielding, the official rule codes do not. Thus there will certainly be arguments as to whether this is interference or obstruction. Which is precisely why J/R provides a definition…



Hope that helps,

Rick

[GarthB]

Is Rick now requiring double posting or is there an echo in here?