Obstruction or Interference? Tricky call

[RPatrino]

Durham, thanks for starting this thread. It was very interesting to see the 'evolution' of this interp from its beginning, to the final word and rule book/case book addition.

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

[Durham]

Originally Posted by RPatrino

Durham, thanks for starting this thread. It was very interesting to see the 'evolution' of this interp from its beginning, to the final word and rule book/case book addition.

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

While I didn't start it, it sure was enjoyable to be apart of the discussion. Hopefully it has helped us all become better equiped to discuse OBS/INT with a coach when we need to. The goal isn't to be right on a board; it is to be right on the field. The play definitly got most of us in the book and we all got better. Some would still rule this OBS and that is fine if they can defend it on the field, but some of us could now with this new interp rule it INT and be backed by the book. For those of you who think I am crazy for ruling INT on this play, it is like I tell my partners when they ask on the way out to the field if I have everything, "I have everything but my judgement. I left it at home again today."

[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

[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?