Baseball rules question: interference.

[Hari_Seldon]

There was a play today in the Blue Jays v. Red Sox game. The batter was running to first, within the 45 foot line and the pitcher (covering first) was trying to catch up with errant throw. Massive collision, both players ended up on the ground. The pitcher had to leave the game and the batter looked dazed (elbowed in the head) but certainly never touched the base. But he was awarded first base. What is the rule when both players are doing their legitimate thing and not trying to interfere with the other, but does?

[Telemark]

That’s not interference, it’s obstruction.

Obstruction (baseball)

Unless the pitcher had the ball or was fielding the ball, the runner has the right to proceed unimpeded. I assume chasing down an errant throw is not fielding the ball.

[Julius_Henry]

Intent isn’t supposed to enter into the ruling. In any case of obstruction (or interference – the difference is that the defence can obstruct, the offence can interfere) the umpire is to set things the way he feels the play would have gone had there been no obstruction.

Here’s the definition of obstruction:

OBSTRUCTION is the act of a fielder who, while not in possession of the ball and not in the act of fielding the ball, impedes the progress of any runner.

Here’s the rule:

6.01(h) Obstruction
When obstruction occurs, the umpire shall call or signal
“Obstruction.”
(1) If a play is being made on the obstructed runner, or if the batter-runner is obstructed before he touches first base, the ball is dead and all runners shall advance, without liability to be put out, to the bases they would have reached, in the umpire’s judgment, if there had been no obstruction. The obstructed runner shall be awarded at least one base beyond the base he had last legally touched before the obstruction. Any preceding runners, forced to advance by the award of bases as the penalty for obstruction, shall advance without liability to be put out.

[russian_heel]

Need to see the video.