[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

I'm not sure we have enough information to be definitive. There is deflected, and there is deflected.

In the past, those charged with case play interpretations indicated that if the ball remained adjacent to a player fielding the ball, that it could be considering still in the act of fielding. The case play referenced above is specific to the ball rolling behind the fielder. The interpretation by MB and HP was similar/identical to NFHS (well, because NFHS used the MB/HP interpretation).

In the past, the rule concerning a deflected batted ball required the deflection to be to another fielder, not the one off which the ball deflected. When that changed, IMO it was apparent that the purpose was a deflected ball was a deflected ball without exception.

Since then, again IMO to placate those who cannot get away from the NFHS interpretation, ASA massaged the interpretation to cover the fielder still in the act of fielding the all, but in the immediate vicinity of the defender's position. IOW, if there was a bobble, the runner could not just bowl him/her over and claim it was a deflected batted ball. OTOH, if the ball deflected to the right, left, behind or in any direction which would require the defender to move to the ball, the runner cannot be expected to instantaneously levitate, disappear, whatever to avoid an unexpected deviation by the defender.

I recall HP using the "one bite of the apple" example to ask if F6 was fielding a bounding ball which rolled around in the glove if the runner could then be accountable for "accidental" contact, be protected from interference and awarded obstruction? When participants eventually agreed that would be interference, he then asked if the ball popped out 1"; then 1 foot, then immediately in front of F6. The purpose of the "drill" was to enable the listeners to realize that this issue is similar to art versus porn; difficult to almost impossible to define, but you should know it when you see it.

HP always talked to his audience's level, so what may have been completely understood by one group may not have carried water to another. Unfortunately, some would start overthinking it and the message was lost.

To the OP; maybe legit, maybe wrong. But we weren't there, and this is judgment.

Andy; unless something specific to a BR rule contradicts, I have always believed you should treat as a subset of runner. There can be no logical basis for treating the play 2' in front of 1st base differently than one 2' after by the same player on the same live play.

Yep.