Obstruction or Interference? Tricky call

[PeteBooth]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by Sal Giaco

Tim,

Excellent post with great references. I think, however, we need to understand the INTENT or ORIGIN of the MLBUM approved ruling. Personally, I believe the A.R. was put into place to emphasize that just because a batted ground ball is deflected, the protection of the defense's ability to further make that play is NOT nullified . Anytime a defensive player is in the act of fielding a batted ground ball, he will be protected against any collision initiated by a runner REGARLESS if the ball was deflected or not.

Sal good post but I disagree with your analysis.

In general the rules favor the offense. The rule-makers wanted to add excitement into the game that's why B1 can over-run first base.

In addition, in general the rules do NOT FAVOR the team that erred.

The intent of the rule was as others pointed out, if the fielder misplays the ball but it is within a step and reach then he is still protected, however, once the fieder "boots the ball" and has to chase it there is no longer protection and depending upon the situation could be guilty of OBS.

Using your theory, the defense is going to get a "second shot" even though they committed an error.

In the tape at least the way I viewed it especially in fast motion, each party was doing what they were supposed to and we had a good ole fashion train wreck.

I hope the final result of the protest will be posted here.

Pete Booth