Runner Tries to Draw Obstruction

[Replacematt]

2 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

 

This logic is fundamentally flawed.  "Intent" is not defined or absolved by a lack of an outcome.  "Intent" is not absolved by failure.  "Intent" is not absolved by being bad at the thing you are trying to accomplish.

While I will agree there is no requirement to "get out of the way to make the defense's life easier", deliberately (hmm, what is a synonym for that word?) moving from your path to put yourself in a path that "makes their life more difficult" is indeed intent to interfere.

Authoritative opinions say otherwise.

Let it go.

[The Man in Blue]

 

Authorities can be wrong.  

[jimurrayalterego]

37 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

 

Authorities can be wrong.  

They can't be wrong in the case of MLB, when they can be silent as to what the umpires should have judged in that case. And some others. They certainly don't seem to be correcting the jab step as stepping off backwords here:

 

[Replacematt]

3 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

 

Authorities can be wrong.  

By definition, they cannot be. They are the ones who determine what is what when it comes to the rules.

[The Man in Blue]

[looks around the world] Without trying to step too far outside the diamond . . .  

When you didn't write the rule . . . 

When your opinion is in direct contradiction to the written rule . . . 

When your only source of "being right" is your title . . . 

Authorities most certainly can be wrong.

[Replacematt]

34 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

[looks around the world] Without trying to step too far outside the diamond . . .  

When you didn't write the rule . . . 

When your opinion is in direct contradiction to the written rule . . . 

When your only source of "being right" is your title . . . 

Authorities most certainly can be wrong.

They wrote the rule.

[MAUmpire]

Surely the horse is dead by now. But I had an IRL conversation with a friend about this play, which led to this old forum post and associated MLBUM interpretation. To @Replacematt's point, still doesn't seem to quite apply to the OP, since the contact occurs before F3's tag attempt.

https://forum.officiating.com/baseball/15999-interference-rod-game-6-alcs.html

So, new situation (provided by said friend). R1, pickoff throw to F3. R1...

1. intentionally blocks the throw from F1 to F3 with his arm like dikembe mutombo. Call: Interference.

2. Intentionally holds F3's glove before the ball arrives, preventing F3 from catching the ball. Call: (a) Interference because this is obviously malicious and unrelated to running the bases? (b) Nothing because F3 can't make a tag attempt without possession of the ball, and he's not interfering with the thrown ball itself? I really don't like option b! 

 

[Velho]

On 4/3/2025 at 5:12 AM, Replacematt said:

NCAA, I'm trying to resolve two rules that are dicta but could be evidence of how to rule, and are contradictory with each other. I'm not going to put much mental effort into it, since I have a feeling that an explanation and ruling for the OP will be out either next Monday or the one after that.

For those with access, was anything ever published on this play?

[Replacematt]

7 hours ago, Velho said:

For those with access, was anything ever published on this play?

I haven't seen anything, surprisingly. They've covered every play that I recall being brought up here so far this year besides that one.