Another INT/OBS Question

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

Just wondering; how do you reconcile that approach (that there is interference with fielding a batted ball without a play) with the definition of interference, which requires that there be a play? Is there any other case or circumstance where you think interference can happen without a "play"?

Sure. Base hit hits a runner with the infield playing deep.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Sure. Base hit hits a runner with the infield playing deep.

Well, that doesn't meet the parameter's of Steve's question (fielding a batted ball, not being hit by a batted ball) and, if it was INT, it cannot possibly be a base hit. Oh, I'm sorry, is that a scoring question?

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

..Oh, I'm sorry, is that a scoring question?

Anyway, just to be clear. I have no issue with the interference rule in general requiring a play, however, the defense IS given more leeway on this point when fielding a batted ball. In the OP, the poster even noted that the fielder could not have caught the ball with "ordinary effort" - this, also, is not the standard for judging interference. The benefit of the doubt on a batted ball must go to the defense. RS 33:

... Defensive players must be given the opportunity to field the ball anywhere on the playing field...