does F2 have to "wait for BR to clear" on path to a bunt?

[DunninLA]

This came up earlier this year and honestly I cannot remember the exact answer... it came up again on the FP discussion section in a discussion about who covers 3rd when F5 is fielding a sacrifice bunt...

so, what I recall is that F2 does not have to wait for BR to clear. Especially with a RH bunter, and a bunt placed on the right half of the infield, a fast catcher could jump toward the bunted ball and, if she doesn't "wait for BR to clear", will likely collide with BR since their paths cross each other. Many BRs wait about a second after contact on a sac bunt to make sure the bunt gets down cleanly. If F2 were to wait until after this BR in this situation started running toward 1st and cleared F2's path, F2 is wasting about 1.5 seconds in time.

So I ask again, if F2 and BR collide (outside the batter's box), and F2 is on a direct path to field a bunted ball, what is the call? a) no call, play on. b) obstruction on F2, c) interference on BR. d) something else?

Oh, I assume BR is not still in the batter's box... but has just exited the batter's box and the collision occurs just in front of home plate.

[MTR]

Both players have certain "rights". Speaking ASA

If they simply collide doing what they are supposed to be doing (BR advancing toward 1B and catcher attempting to field the ball), it is consider nothing. However, if one pushes the other or in the umpire's judgment commits some act not associated with making the appropriate play, INT/OBS can be called. FWIW, I mean something that is a blatant indication the one player was trying to stop the player instead of fielding the ball. (grabbing, pushing, etc.) If, in the umpire's judgment, the catcher is not the most likely fielder to get an out (another player in better position to field the ball), it could very well be considered OBS.

[coachEd]

Ah, this brings back memories. 1975 World Series, Red Sox v. Reds, Game 3. This was the game best remembered for Ed Ambrister's sacrifice bunt and subsequent collision with Carlton Fisk. The Red Sox felt Umpire larry Barnett should have called interference. But there was no such call and the sacrifice stood.

[DunninLA]

Thanks for your replies.

Two of our catchers are bulky, one is small. I think each will have to figure out whether a quick and aggressive path to the ball is in their favor, or not. I suspect the smaller one won't win in any collision, and would therefore be disadvantaged by an aggressive path. The smaller one, who is much quicker as you might expect, would have to actually beat the BR off the blocks to avoid a collision.

[Rowdy1]

The fielder has the right of way. The problem is that not too many umpires are going to call anyhting but incidental contact in this scenario and the catcher should still make the play if they had one in the first place.