Avoiding an obstructing defender

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Dakota

I know what he said. But, for years 8-7Q has been an interference rule. It is an interference rule. The call against the runner who violates the rule is interference.

I disagree. Crashing into a fielder with the ball COULD be interference just as crashing into a fielder without the ball, but those situations are clearly defined in other rules. As 8.7.Q reads, it does not necessarily have to be a case of INT. It would be difficult for you to convince me that this rule is specifically in the book to deter the baseball-minded folks which at one time believed this was an acceptable act by a baserunner to avoid being put out. To the best of my knowledge, only the Olympics, MLB & MiLB still hold this belief to be true. Not sure about the NCAA baseball rules. The beginning of RS #13 specifically notes that this rule is for the safety of the players.

If possession is not required for the out, then other adjustments need to be made.

Either change the definition of interference.

Or change the definition of a play.

Or they willl need to change the interpretation of the rule as an interference rule. Interpretations cited above.

Again, the way the rule is written does not indicate INT. Yes, the RS does, but read each paragraph. All that infer INT specifically qualify the interpretation by noting the player has the ball. At no point would this pre-empt the enforcement of the proposed rule as all your concerns are already addressed.

The proposed rule simply states that a runner cannot crash into a fielder. Should that fielder be in possession of the ball at that time, INT is a possibility and is covered by other rules and clarified RS #13.