Retired runner proceeds straight to base -- do you have interference? (ASA)

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by EsqUmp

Sounds like a lot of people are really saying, "As long as the runner does 'what she is supposed to,' there isn't interference."

Yes, and as a matter of fact, that was the same verbiage used in Colorado Springs in 2006 at the National Council Meeting when "intent" was removed from the INT rules.

Should we apply this to R1 who runs in a straight line directly into F4 fielding a batted ball? Her "act" is running. Colliding with F4 isn't an "act" it is just a consequence of her "non-act" of running, according to the logic we hear.

That's not logic, that's just a misleading argument. What R1 is "supposed to be doing" is avoiding a fielder making a play on a batted ball.

So if F6 dives for a ball that just gets by her, is she immediately committing obstruction on R2 (assuming she was actually hindered) because she is no longer in the "act" of fielding a batted ball?

That could be true. But on OBS, the runner just gets what should have been where on INT, the defense ALWAYS receives an assumed out, sometimes two.

Seems to be a lot of contradiction and applying the "what's she supposed to do " philosophy, that so many argue against.

No more so than awarding a base to a runner on an IP. One has nothing to do with the other except for being punitive, just like effecting the LBR for a runner stepping off a base or not deciding to return to the base quick enough when there is obviously no play developing.

Then there is the U3K. Why does the offense get another chance to reach the base safely simply after failing to put the ball into play and the catcher doesn't catch the ball? Neither did what they were supposed to do, so why isn't it just a wash?