Why Wasn't This Interference?

[UES]

Originally Posted by bluehair

...You don't see interference called on these kind of plays...doing so would be OOO above kiddie ball level.

Amen! It goes back to what I posted earlier - don't take the sh!tty end of the stick...especially at the higher levels.

[bob jenkins]

I would not have interference on this play. I think F3 gave way "too soon" -- that is he chose to go into foul, he wasn't forced to do so by the runner's actions.

[jicecone]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Hmmm.

Given that it seems you're an intelligent and competent umpire in most of these discussions - I'm beginning to wonder if you're merely sticking to your guns for the sake of winning an argument. It's completely OK to say, "Well, upon further review, I may have been mistaken earlier."

Mike, believe me if I think I am wrong I will be the first to admit. I can't officiate based upon what I think may have happened but my ruling has to be on what actually happened. Probably the one interp in Fed ball that asks us to do differently is a bad throw to first on RLI. OBR and NCAA says the quality of the throw counts. Fed asks us to assume that the fielder could have made a good throw but, didn't because the BR was there. Not crazy about it but that is how they want it called.

Again, interference does not have to be intentional but it does have to be interference. In this I don't believe it was. If you feel differently then that's ok, we can agree to disagree and move on.

Enjoy the weekend.

[Publius]

Originally Posted by Manny A

So, it's your position that the fielder has to make a bonafide attempt to get to the ball and not avoid a collision? How does what LaRoche did not qualify for being hindered or impeded?

Yes, that's my position.

If you don't try to field the ball, I'm not going to say you were impeded in trying to field the ball. When you have the right to your position and you cede it unnecessarily, I'm not going to bail you out.