Obstruction or Interference? Tricky call

[PFISTO]

Originally Posted by PeteBooth

It would have been interesting to see if the Protest would have been disallowed if the ORIGINAL call or I should say the no call was NOT changed.

Also, I still would like to know how the PROS would rule

Pete Booth

This is the reply I recieved from someone who was in the pros. I did not ask permission to post this ( I forgot to ask but I'm sure it wouldn't be a problem ) so I am a little uncomfortable saying who it was from.

Regarding your play: This is interference by the B-R. If the B-R is touched by a deflected ball, the ball remains alive and in play. However, if a runner or B-R (as in this case) interferes with a fielder in the act of fielding a deflected ball, he is out for the interference. In making this call, the umpire must be convinced that the fielder was in the immediate area of the ball and had a legitimate chance to make a play when the interference occurred. If this were not the case, this would be Type A obstruction. IS THIS THE PRO RULE???

[BigUmp56]

Originally Posted by PFISTO

This is the reply I recieved from someone who was in the pros. I did not ask permission to post this ( I forgot to ask but I'm sure it wouldn't be a problem ) so I am a little uncomfortable saying who it was from.

Regarding your play: This is interference by the B-R. If the B-R is touched by a deflected ball, the ball remains alive and in play. However, if a runner or B-R (as in this case) interferes with a fielder in the act of fielding a deflected ball, he is out for the interference. In making this call, the umpire must be convinced that the fielder was in the immediate area of the ball and had a legitimate chance to make a play when the interference occurred. If this were not the case, this would be Type A obstruction. IS THIS THE PRO RULE???

This person's interpretation flies in the face of both Evans and Roder. I don't know how much more I can say that would convince you that you're incorrect, and so is your former pro friend.


Tim.

[PFISTO]

Originally Posted by BigUmp56

This person's interpretation flies in the face of both Evans and Roder. I don't know how much more I can say that would convince you that you're incorrect, and so is your former pro friend.


Tim.

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

[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.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by tkaufman

and as he reaches down to pick up the ball near the line, the BR unintentionally collides with him,

Distinctly different from what started this thread.

It's amazing that after 87 posts, including some references to MLB umpires and other gurus that we still don't have a definitive answer. I guess both answers are correct, if, in the opinion of the person making the call, they can justify their position through the use of the rule book. I must have watched the clip 20 times and saw something slightly different each time.

Maybe the rule book need to be clarified??