Incidental Contact

[kjbco]

Watching a 10U baseball game last night there was a pop up on the 1st base line between home and 1st. Pitcher is running over and looking up to try to catch the ball, The batter is looking down running to 1st base. He was right on the baseline. They never saw each other and they collided the ball drops in foul territory. The umpire called him out. I think it should have been called incidental contact batter has a strike and play on.

[jTheUmp]

You thought incorrectly.

Runners and batter-runners may not interfere with a fielder attempting to make an initial play on a batted ball, which is exactly what happened in the situation you describe.

[thumpferee]

Originally Posted by kjbco

I think it should have been called incidental contact batter has a strike and play on.

You would be wrong!

A base runner, in your case a BR, must avoid a fielder attempting to make a play on a batted ball.

Interference, BR is out. All other runners return to base occupied at TOP.

[bob jenkins]

The above two posts both assume that F1 was the "protected fielder" (a reasonable assumption, to be sure, but not an absolute).

If F3 or F2 was the protected fielder, then this would be OBS, and the play would be treated as a foul ball.

[BoomerSooner]

By calling it "incidental" I think the OP may be suggesting the contact was "unintentional", and it most likely was unintentional from the description of the play. The key, however, is that intent is not a factor when determining interference on a fielder making the initial play on a ball.

The runner/batter runner has a responsibility to avoid interference with the fielder in this situation. The out isn't for the contact, but rather for failing to avoid interfering with the fielder. Had the fielder still caught the ball, there wouldn't be interference even if the contact was intentional because the contact didn't interfere with the fielders ability to make a play (although there might be other penalties depending on the nature of the contact).

[kjbco]

It was a bang bang play where the ball F1 and the runner all met at the same time. It was "unintentional". There was no way the runner could avoid F1. It was a shallow pop up on the 1st baseline.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by kjbco

It was a bang bang play where the ball F1 and the runner all met at the same time. It was "unintentional". There was no way the runner could avoid F1. It was a shallow pop up on the 1st baseline.

BR is out for interference...them's the breaks sometimes.

[jTheUmp]

Originally Posted by kjbco

It was a bang bang play where the ball F1 and the runner all met at the same time. It was "unintentional". There was no way the runner could avoid F1. It was a shallow pop up on the 1st baseline.

The runner could've avoided interfering by either running wide on either the fair or foul side of the line.

(I know what you're thinking: "that means he has to run out of the baseline, which makes him out"... the "out of the baseline" rule ONLY applies when a fielder is attempting to tag a runner. If a fielder isn't attempting a tag, the runner can run wherever he wants to as long as he's not committing interference by doing so.)

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by kjbco

It was a bang bang play where the ball F1 and the runner all met at the same time. It was "unintentional". There was no way the runner could avoid F1. It was a shallow pop up on the 1st baseline.

The protected fielder has an absolute right to the batted ball; the runner has an absolute obligation to avoid him.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by kjbco

It was a bang bang play where the ball F1 and the runner all met at the same time. It was "unintentional". There was no way the runner could avoid F1. It was a shallow pop up on the 1st baseline.

Then it's interference on the batter-runner.

[Mrumpiresir]

Originally Posted by BoomerSooner

Had the fielder still caught the ball, there wouldn't be interference even if the contact was intentional because the contact didn't interfere with the fielders ability to make a play (although there might be other penalties depending on the nature of the contact).

I have to disagree with this. As soon as the protected fielder is contacted or alters his play on the ball, we have interference and the play should be killed. We don't wait to see what happens next. The hypothetical catch never happened.

[BoomerSooner]

Originally Posted by Mrumpiresir

I have to disagree with this. As soon as the protected fielder is contacted or alters his play on the ball, we have interference and the play should be killed. We don't wait to see what happens next. The hypothetical catch never happened.

The infraction and subsequent penalty is for interference not for contact. I was taught not to kill the play, because a double play can only be awarded if the interference was intentional, so if you kill every play only based on contact, you might prevent the defense from making 2 outs just because of the contact.

For example, let's add a runner on 1st to the OP's situation and turn the play into a hit and run. Based on the description, I don't consider the BR's contact to be a willful and/or deliberate attempt to prevent a double play (which by rule requires a dead ball, BR and runner closest to home are out). I allow the play to go on and F1 catches the ball and is able to throw to F3 to appeal the runner leaving early for another out on the play. If F1 is unable to make the play due to the contact, I then exercise my judgement that the BR did indeed interfere with F1 and call the BR out and return the runner to 1st. If I kill the play, I've penalized the defense for an infraction committed by the offense.