NCAA and now FED Obstruction

[UMP25]

I think SA's question was a hypothetical, rhetorical one. I don't believe he was serious about having that called interference.

[SAump]

Originally Posted by MrUmpire

Even a rhetorical question should be based somewhat on reality. The reality is that if the fielder has ball, it has never been interference, while the fielder without the ball impeding the runner depending on timing, has been obstruction.

Now, if he questioned as to whether, in FED, that would be automatic malicious contact, he would be closer to having something to discuss.

Wouldn't reality demonstrate that if said fielder has ball, it has never been ruled obstruction?

In the past, obstruction was never called when a ball was thrown to a fielder in the vicinity of a base for the purpose of making a play. Only in recent years has this idea been changed to require a fielder to first obtain possession of the ball. Obstructionis is also ruled on a fielder diving for a batted ball who miffs and then collides with baserunner. Both of these concepts are now applied to our obstruction play at first base.

This past MLB summer, A-Rod gained possession of 3B after colliding over the top of F5. F5 had possession of the batted ball but was not in position to tag A-Rod. A-Rod landed on 3B and F5's throw to 1B was too late to retire B/R. According to my hypothesis, AROD woulda/shoulda been ruled out for interference with F5's play at 1B. NADA. That play and another were discussed on this website.
----------------------
Rhetorical would be calling the runner out after a collision knocks the ball out of the the defensive players glove. After all, runner was out before the collision. Remember this was about preventing collisions.

[SAump]

Originally Posted by MrUmpire

How has such a runner interfered if the fielder has the ball?

Ex. Play at home, fast runner beats the throw sliding into catcher. Catcher who was waiting to catch the ball is knocked off his feet. Had collision not taken place, F2 would have caught the ball and baserunners would not have advanced an extra base safely. Old rule: nothing, trainwreck.

New rule suggests intereference. Because of the collision between runner and fielder, any subsequent play after the collision has been affected, thus the new possibility for interference. Defensive coach is screaming because his catcher was standing off the plate in fair territory. Oh, pooh.

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by SAump

Ex. Play at home, fast runner beats the throw sliding into catcher. Catcher who was waiting to catch the ball is knocked off his feet. Had collision not taken place, F2 would have caught the ball and baserunners would not have advanced an extra base safely. Old rule: nothing, trainwreck.

New rule suggests intereference. Because of the collision between runner and fielder, any subsequent play after the collision has been affected, thus the new possibility for interference. Defensive coach is screaming because his catcher was standing off the plate in fair territory. Oh, pooh.

Rather than switching the play, how about sticking to what you wrote and what I responded to?

Originally Posted by SAump

"Will runners be guilty of interference for crashing into a fielder who caught the ball before the collision?"

[bluehair]

Wasn't there a big difference (Fed/NCAA) in the way F3 could/could not block 1B on a pickoff. Perhaps the significance of this rule change is intended to address this situation.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by bluehair

Wasn't there a big difference (Fed/NCAA) in the way F3 could/could not block 1B on a pickoff. Perhaps the significance of this rule change is intended to address this situation.

Agreed. But the change, as described in RefMag (and I recognize that RefMag is not official) goes beyond this difference.

Still, I'm amazed the thread was resurrected.