Play

[BretMan]

Originally Posted by whiskers_ump

Collision was not intentional...

That qualifier right there lets the runner off the hook.

I believe that FED is unique in that a runner can be guilty of interference with a fielder even if that fielder is not fielding a batted ball or making a throw. Didn't they modify their interference rule a couple of years ago (rule 8-6-10d)?

I would have to do some digging to try and find the interpretations that were issued back when the rule was changed. My recollection is that they enforced the idea that a fielder could just be standing there, totally not involved in any play, and if the runner ran into her in such a way that it could have been avoided you would have interference- as long as the contact was judged as "intentional". That the runner ran into the fielder (not maliciously) when she could have avoided the contact equated to "intent".

It is stated that the contact by the runner on this play was not intentional. I would take that to mean that the runner did not have an ample opportunity to avoid the fielder in her path, making the contact unavoidable.

Now, a question: For those that say they would have "nothing" on this play, were you so focused on the fact that the runner did nothing wrong that you totally forgot about obstruction?

[shipwreck]

Since NFHS doesn't allow a "train wreck" I would call obstruction. Dave

[Stu Clary]

Originally Posted by BretMan

For those that say they would have "nothing" on this play, were you so focused on the fact that the runner did nothing wrong that you totally forgot about obstruction?

Obstruction was my first thought.