Interference?

djcarter1966 said:

I think we all understand what we mean but I think it is just a matter of perspective.

Umpires out there (and I used to be one many moons ago) Just to be 100% clear and please correct me if I am wrong there is not a rule book or rule set that I am aware of that says "the runner most avoid contact with a fielder standing in the base path" again I could be wrong since it's been a while and please correct if I am wrong. In any case where there is a fielder in the base path it is the fielder that is causing the contact NOT the runner, if the fielder was not violating the rule there would be no contact!!

Click to expand...

Depends on the rule set. Yet, there are some which have specific rules addressing malicious contact. OPKAA only addresses a collision with a defender in possession of the ball preparing to tag the approaching runner. There have been proposals in the past to rectify that situation, but were defeated.

This idea of teaching players to brush the fielder is actually going above and beyond the rules, it is perfectly within the runners right to continue on the base path but they are being coached to NOT plow the fielder over this is actually coaching sportsmanship and erring on the side of caution not wanting to unintentionally cause injury. This should be applauded not chastised it is the opposite of teaching girls to simply run the fielder over because they have a right to the base path.

Click to expand...

Having the right to your own path does not afford the runner the right to intentionally make contact with a defender. An umpire who recognizes such a move may very well ignore the obstruction for the reason that when they seek to make contact, no matter how slight, the runner is no longer attempting to progress, but making a conscientious choice of making contact with the defender. IOW, the runner created their own impediment.

As is always the case quality umpires want to live in a world where other umpires are just like them but to those of us in the real world "THERE WAS NO CONTACT" rules the day; now to give the umpires the benefit of the doubt I think many of them realize the rule does not require contact but unless the change of path to run around the fielder is really obvious without contact their eyes are not drawn to the incident and they don't see it clearly enough to call it and one thing most umpire are good at is "if you did not see it and are sure don't make the call on what you "thought might" have happened only call what you see". and their is zero chance a runner yelling move, move is getting the umpires attention beside "what is the girl whining about play ball and stop complaining"

Click to expand...

Making excuses or buying into some rubbish reasoning, either way its bullshit. BTW, as far as "rules the day" claim, it just isn't true anywhere I've worked or instructed.
In the end player should not be intentionally contacting other player but they should also not be intentionally avoiding other players who are violating the rules.[/QUOTE]

If you had umpires who had the integrity to call the game by the real rules instead of MSU rules, that probably wouldn't be an issue.