OBS/INT or none?

[Paul L]

#1: If, in my judgment, F6's lowered shoulder or two-hand push is flagrant and violent (e.g., obviously aggressive and not just self-protective) and it results in R2 losing contact with his base through no action of his own, then I would call obstruction and protect the runner back to the base.

Obstruction is defined as "impeding the progress" of a runner and I feel a bit out on a limb in saying that a runner not attempting to advance or return to a base has his progress impeded when a fielder intentionally causes him to lose contact with the base. I would argue that baserunning includes maintaining contact with the base when a fielder with the ball is within reach. And a fielder intentionally pushing a runner off base, exposing him to being tagged out, impedes the runner's progress toward eventually crossing home. Perhaps this is more an interpretation that fleshes out the skeleton of the written rules.

#2: As mbyron says, yes, they are different, but not necessarily distinguishable. Blatant probably is flagrant, but subtle could be too.

#3: A runner tying his shoes during live ball will get less protection than a runner tracking a fly ball. A runner who moves into the fielder's path while maintaining contact with the base while not noticing F6 because he is tracking the ball will get more protection than if he was aware of F6's path and could have avoided or reduced contact. And if the runner's movement is judged to be intentional, then maybe interference and two outs. In short, there are many variables happening at the same time that contribute to the umpire's call. HTBT.

[steveshane67]

Originally Posted by Paul L

#3: A runner tying his shoes during live ball will get less protection than a runner tracking a fly ball. A runner who moves into the fielder's path while maintaining contact with the base while not noticing F6 because he is tracking the ball will get more protection than if he was aware of F6's path and could have avoided or reduced contact. And if the runner's movement is judged to be intentional, then maybe interference and two outs. In short, there are many variables happening at the same time that contribute to the umpire's call. HTBT.

How can a runner whos tying his shoes act in any manner thats considered intentional, hes tying his shoes not paying attention to anything!!!

maybe theres a different rule that applies here that im not aware of that someone could be so kind as to set the record straight.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by steveshane67

How can a runner whos tying his shoes act in any manner thats considered intentional, hes tying his shoes not paying attention to anything!!!

maybe theres a different rule that applies here that im not aware of that someone could be so kind as to set the record straight.

Haven't you ever heard of the old "tying the shoes" ploy used by base runners to intentionally interfere with a play? Jeez, I thought everyone knew that! Runners always stop in the middle of playing action to tie their shoes. Where have you been?