Obstruction, or let them play?

[EsqUmp]

Originally Posted by jmkupka

Never saw a runner just "standing" in a baseline, after having been put out by 20' at 2B.
BUT, said runner, running in that direct path from 1B to 2B, getting hit by the thrown ball after being put out at 2B (by any distance), won't be called for INT by me unless she performs an act of INT (i.e. steps into the thrown ball after running wide of the line between 1B & 2B, or falls down then stands up into the throw)

Okay. So rather than "standing" let's say she continues to "run." Why is running not an "act" but "laying" on the ground after just missing a ball is not an "act?" Are they both not continuing to do what they were legally permitted to do a moment earlier?

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by EsqUmp

Okay. So rather than "standing" let's say she continues to "run." Why is running not an "act" but "laying" on the ground after just missing a ball is not an "act?" Are they both not continuing to do what they were legally permitted to do a moment earlier?

Then you are missing the point.

The runner was legally running the bases; she was then put out, and changed status to a retired runner.

The defensive player that was never in the act of fielding the ball, was simply ATTEMPTING to get to where she MIGHT have a chance to field the ball, was NEVER protected from obstruction; not while simply chasing, not while laying on the ground after obviously failing. Repeat; she was never in the act of actually fielding the batted ball, she has no protection from committing obstruction.

[Andy]

Originally Posted by EsqUmp

Okay. So rather than "standing" let's say she continues to "run." Why is running not an "act" but "laying" on the ground after just missing a ball is not an "act?" Are they both not continuing to do what they were legally permitted to do a moment earlier?

Because you are comparing apples and oranges....

Despite what many people think, Interference and Obstruction ARE NOT the direct opposite of each other.

Per definitions, (most) interference violations require an "act" of interference, obstruction violations do not require an "act" of obstruction, just that the runner is hindered by a defensive player without the ball or fielding a batted ball.

If you don't like that, lobby to have the rule changed. Until then, make the ruling prescribed by the ruleset you are working that day.

[EsqUmp]

Originally Posted by Andy

Because you are comparing apples and oranges....

Despite what many people think, Interference and Obstruction ARE NOT the direct opposite of each other.

Per definitions, (most) interference violations require an "act" of interference, obstruction violations do not require an "act" of obstruction, just that the runner is hindered by a defensive player without the ball or fielding a batted ball.

If you don't like that, lobby to have the rule changed. Until then, make the ruling prescribed by the ruleset you are working that day.

That's funny (or sad) because the definition of "OBSTRUCTION" begins with, "The act []." This is why I say umpires can't learn rules if they don't learn definitions.

Beyond that, people are defining "act" differently based on whether it is obstruction or interference.