I know the rule, but there is always one parent in the stands that yells it when their team doesn't catch a popup.Runners were on 1st and 3rd and 2 outs already.
I know the rule, but there is always one parent in the stands that yells it when their team doesn't catch a popup.Runners were on 1st and 3rd and 2 outs already.
I'm glad I was at home watching this instead of being there. I was watching w/o sound so didn't hear the parents initially when it was happening. I did go back and listen to see what they were saying however - kind of fun. I'm sure I've said similar things beforeI know the rule, but there is always one parent in the stands that yells it when their team doesn't catch a popup.
I did notice F4 glance at the runner, I guess to miss a collision. I def think the ball was catchable had she not hesitated on her initial run to the ball.
Or reality ......that the fielders reaction to the hit ball was totally within average and expected period of time.A play like that is likely to have a LONG conversation between umpires. Why? We are discussing the ONE look we got in real time. We are trying to take apart every element.
My initial thought in real time, I have no interference call.
F4 was camped out in the wrong spot and, when she realized it, made a quick move to get to the ball. It just happened to be the runner had already passed her initial position and the fielder was actually chasing the runner's path so the fielder could get to the ball. The runner did not block the fielder's view of a pop fly; the fielder lost the ball. The runner did not crash into the camped out fielder (contact is NOT needed though!). Could the runner have given a little more room? Maybe, but the runner is already past the fielder's initial position on the ball.
Watching it again ... I'm not changing my initial call.
Umpires bailed her out if they ultimately came back with interference.
Another opinion were interference CANT happen without contact.....which Is wrongAgreed, not the best angle. That being said, unless R1 made contact with F4' glove running by, I cannot see interference. (Again, from the provided angle)
Also agreed, the crew needs to be more mobile to get in better position to make this call. By being static, they have created their own monster of having to deal with an argument rather than make the call definitively and forestall any discussion.
I am in no way saying contact had to happen for interference in general. I am saying that in this case, unless the runner made contact with the fielder's glove and that is what caused to 'funny' motion of the 2B's arm, I do not see interference by the runner.Another opinion were interference CANT happen without contact.....which Is wrong