Obstruction or Interference? Tricky call

[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.