Interference, Obstruction or Train Wreck??

[tibear]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

tibear,

The criteria to be used in determining whether this is interference or obstruction is whether, in the umpire's judgement, the F4 had a legitimate chance to retire a runner absent the collision.

If he he judged that he did, it's interference. If he judged that he didn't, it's obstruction.

Whether the ball is in flight or not or whether F4 is moving or standing still is at best peripherally relevant.

The only way you get two outs on the play is if the umpire judges both that the F4 had a play and that the R1 intentionally ran into him to break up the double play - possible, but a bit of a stretch in my opinion.

JM

P.S. Why on earth would you judge intent (on the part of R1) based on the F4 standing still?

If F4 is standing still then obviously R1 had to see him before running into him, unless R1 is either running with his eyes closed or his head down. In all likelihood F4 isn't standing 3 feet beside R1 as R1 starts his run. The assumption in the intentional interference is that if F4 is stationally then R1 had at least 10 feet to see F4 and avoid running into him.