Why Wasn't This Interference?

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by jicecone

No I don't think F3 is going to "TRY" and get an interference call, I am sure he is more interested in fielding the ball. However had he tried and the runner collided with him, yes then there would have been interference. But that is not how it happened and that is our job to rulle on what happened.

Now as far as obstruction, I don't know if he "just choose to take a crooked path to the base" or not but, I can see that as a result of the fielder hanging out or obstructing, the runner was delayed in getting to the next base. Root cause is obvious. Assuming gets you in trouble.

Hmmm.

OK, A) Why say Try, and put it in quotes even ... when I didn't SAY or even IMPLY that F3 was trying for anything. Replace "for him to get an interference call" with "for you to call interference" if you need to. F3 isn't TRYING anything. He's fielding a ball, and then veers away - and had he not veered away, he would have collided with the runner. You don't have to read anyone's mind here. You can SEE the runner in his path, and you can SEE him change directions because of that runner.

B) The standard for INT on this play and OBS on the other play is EXACTLY the same. The fielder has the right to field a batted ball - when runner got in his way, he was in jeopardy of an INT call --- and when fielder reacted to him, you have interference - exactly as you would have OBS if the roles were reversed.

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."