Obstruction or Interference? Tricky call

[SAump]

Originally Posted by Chris_Hickman

Here is the NCAA interp.

Rule 8-5-d AR 2, p. 94

Play A-A batted ball that deflects off the pitcher and the pitcher has to chase after it. The ball has come to rest near the running lane and the pitcher, who has arrived at the ball well before the batter-runner gets there, reaches down and picks it up and is then contacted by the batter-runner.

Interp #1: If the fielder gets to the ball well before the runner, the runner must avoid the fielder or the runner will be guilty of interference.

Interp #2: If the fielder gets to the ball, as the runner is arriving, then the fielder must avoid the runner or be guilty of obstruction. (See Rule 2, Interference, AR 4, p. 34). If, in the judgment of the umpire, the fielder does not have a legitimate chance to make a play on the ball, (the fielder was merely moving in the direction of the ball), obstruction should be the call.

In both Interps #1 and #2, treat the pitcher as any other fielder in this situation.

Tangle-untangle. The fielder had a legitimate chance to both field the ball and tag the runner out. I wouldn't call this obstruction. I am not convinced the runner's didn't have a choice to avoid the fielder who may have had a legitimate chance to field the ball and make a tag attempt within the 3 foot lane. The runner took a chance at wiping out the fielder's chance to field the ball cleanly and lost. I wouldn't call this interference. I am sure if the pitcher would not have fielded the ball cleanly, the runner would have gotten up and arrived safely at 1B. Just as it often happens at the plate, tangle-untangle the wreck.