re: We got a Break on the Interference Call

quote:

---

furthermore, one could argue he wasn't in the act of chasing after the ball or reaching for the ball so these rules may not apply here.

---

Then he ceases to be in the act of fielding and the ruling would be obstruction. Runner advances.

I for one think the umpire made a judgement call (that I happen to agree with). The runners improper path of running impeded the act of fielding by Jacoby.

quote:

---

The runners improper path of running impeded the act of fielding by Jacoby.

---

Where did you want him to run?? Jones is running at full speed and he's headed full speed towards the base. It's not like Jones was a stationary target that he could run around.

I'm not saying the ump is an idiot. I know it's a bang bang play and must be extremely difficult to call in real time. I'm just saying the original poster is right by saying we got a break because the rule based on the replay says it should have been called the other way.

Like I said, it depends on what the umpire interpreted. If he reads the Rant, Jones is nearing Superhero status and can defy physics, so obviously the ball is always within reach.

I just don't think it was a blatant miss.

quote:

---

Seriously, do you not see how any umpire would call this interference? Your opinion differs from the umpire and that doesn't necessarily mean you're right and he's wrong.

---

Absolutely!! I never argued that! If I was umpiring I would have probably made the same call. I merely suggested we got lucky. Here is the deal. I not only look at the literal definition of rules but also the "spirit" of it. The spirit of the rule is TO ALLOW THE FIELDER A REASONABLE CHANCE TO CATCH THE BALL AND MAKE A PLAY. Was he given this chance??? Of course he was! Interference should be called if there is contact BEFORE the fielder makes contact with the ball as it is done so 99% of the time. If he fields the ball cleanly and runs into the guy...then it's interference because he doesn't have a chance to make a play then. That's the argument in a nutshell. Goodnight!!!!!! GEAUX Tigers!!!

quote:

---

Lester Earl

---

He wasn't in pursuit or chase of the ball, so it doesn't apply.

Underneath the obstruction definition:

quote:

---

A.R. 2: When a fielder has made an attempt to field a batted or thrown ball, has missed and
is in pursuit of the ball, he may no longer be considered “in the act” of fielding.

quote:

---

A.R. 3: After a fielder has misplayed a batted ball and the ball is “within a step and a reach”
the fielder is still considered “in the act.

---

---

So the question is if the fielder was "within a step and a reach" when contact occurred.



ETA:

quote:

---

Where did you want him to run?? Jones is running at full speed and he's headed full speed towards the base. It's not like Jones was a stationary target that he could run around.

---

He's allowed to run behind the fielder in order to avoid interference.

Looks like he is to me, the rule doesn't specify which direction the ball has to be in relation to the fielder. That certainly looks like a "step and a reach" to me.

The spirit of the rule? Have you ever officiated any sport??

quote:

---

So the question is if the fielder was "within a step and a reach" when contact occurred.

---

And Jones was completely stationary when the contact occurred right??

Why would you reward the fielder who booted the ball? The contact occurred after the misplay. It had no bearing on the fielding of the ball. Jones is headed full speed in one direction (obviously since he killed the CSF player) so he's got no chance at changing direction and picking the ball up to make a play. Umps can make judgement calls.