Why Wasn't This Interference?

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by jicecone

Hopefully I can explain.

Manny is trying to say that the fielder choose to go over the foul line and field the deflected batted fair ball because he did not want to get in the way of the BR. "His interpretation" seems to imply that because he saw the F3 avoid the runner, it was to aviod interference and therefore is, interference.

I am saying that interference can not be called on an assumption that F3 would have been interferred with, if he wasn't interferred with. It has to happen and if it does (intentional or not) then it would be interference.

You implied that when you watched the slo-mo replay, you also believed this could be interference. I am saying fast-mo or slo-mo, it was never interference because the fielder never took the route where he was "ABSOLUTELY protected "en-route" to fielding a ball".

So you seem to be requiring the fielder to run through a charging runner in order to get an interference call. This one is simple - the runner was where the fielder needed to go to field the ball. As soon as the fielder changed paths to avoid the runner, it was interference.

By your logic, you could never have obstruction either if a runner veered around a fielder. After all, you don't KNOW that he didn't just choose to take a crooked path to the base.