<b>PLAY</b>: The batter smacks the ball down into the soft dirt, and it dribbles slowly up the first baseline. The batter is off with contact, and the catcher is close on his heels. The BR avoids contact with the ball as he passes it, while F2 follows closely behind the BR. As F2 reaches down to glove the ball, the BR's heel hits F2's glove during the BR's back-stride, and the tripped BR falls flat on his face. F2 picks up the ball and tags the BR, who's still lying in a heap on the ground.

Your call?

Since you didn't state otherwise, it looked foul from here (grin)

Steve

Play stands. BR out. (Trying to keep my perfect record going.)

Assuming you're describing a sitch with a fair ball, any time the BR is tripped from behind it is obstruction. Intent is not to be considered. Dead ball, award the batter first base.

Any time the catcher is tripped from behind it is interference on the BR.

Play stands.

Per 7.09(l) Approved Ruling it's a no call unless the trip is intentional.

Not perfect like Bob but trying to stay on the "honorable mention" list.

Sorry, the batted ball was in fair territory all the way.

I have to concur with those who let the play stand as is. The batter was doing what he was supposed to do (running to first) and the catcher was doing what he was supposed to do (fielding the ball). You will always have plays like this when the ball is bunted. It is a wreck and let the play stand. BR is out, and toss the 1b coach if he gets too personal.

That's OBSTRUCTION, the ball is dead and the BR is awarded 1st base.

According to OBR 7.09(L)Comment, contact between the catcher and the batter-runner in such circumstances would normally need to be both "flagrant and violent" for a call of obstruction. The following JEA play and ruling indicates that any trip from behind by the catcher on the batter-runner should be considered "flagrant and violent", despite the incidental nature of the contact or the catcher's intent.

"<i><b>PLAY:</b> The batter tops a ball down the first base line. The batter is advancing toward first base while the catcher comes up from behind to field the fair ball. The catcher inadvertently trips the batter...retrieves the ball...and tags the fallen batter-runner. What's the call?

<b>RULING:</b> When the batter-runner is tripped from behind...obstruction should be called. The batter-runner is awarded first base.</i>"

Equally, it would have been ruled interference if the batter-runner had instead collided with the catcher from behind, the batter-runner would then be out and the ball dead.

Cheers,

So why does the actual rule comment state "'right of way' is not a license to, for example, INTENTIONALLY trip a runner . ." ????

Remember, the runners heel hit the glove, not the glove hit the runner's heel. The runner tripped himself, the catcher didn't trip the runner.

Why?
 

OBSTRUCTION doesn't normally require umpires to consider the INTENT of the fielder when the runner is impeded. All that matters is that the runner WAS impeded.

The Casebook Comment to which you refer is a general statement that deliberate acts by the fielder will NEVER be considered part of any so-called "train wreck" situation ANYWHERE on the base path. It deals with the fact that this is a rule about INTERFERENCE not OBSTRUCTION. What it says is that while any fielder (including the catcher) certainly has the "right of way" to field a batted or thrown ball, that is NOT to be viewed as a licence to deliberately impede the runner, for example by intentionally tripping him. Protection from interference does NOT include the right to deliberately obstruct the runner.

OTOH, the Evans Professional Ruling is an explanation of a specific circumstance in which you MUST call OBSTRUCTION; namely if the catcher trips the batter-runner from behind. <u>Normally ANY contact between the catcher and the batter-runner around the plate area is NOTHING</u>. If, however, the batter-runner collides with the catcher and accidentally trips him from behind in the process, that's INTERFERENCE. The reverse situation simply maintains the balance between offense and defense. This case has been made a specific exception because the offense would be too severely disadvantaged, regardless of the catcher's intent.

(a) Any fielder including the catcher cannot INTENTIONALLY trip a runner, even when protected and fielding in the <u>base path</u> either AHEAD OF OR BEHIND the runner, but
(b) the catcher specifically cannot trip the batter-runner from BEHIND while fielding a batted ball in the <u>plate area</u> and toward 1st base, whether INTENTIONALLY OR OTHERWISE.

Remember, both the catcher and the batter-runner are <i><b>required by rule</b></i> to be in the plate area at the same time. That is a unique situation on the base paths, such that any contact is <u>normally treated as neither obstruction nor interference</u>. However, any such contact by a runner elsewhere on the base path would <i>automatically</i> be considered INTERFERENCE under OBR 7.09(L) <i>unless</i> the trip was adjudged to be a deliberate act of the fielder. So, if this accidental trip happens elsewhere on the base paths, it's INTERFERENCE! If it happens around home plate toward 1st base, and the fielder involved is the catcher, that's OBSTRUCTION.

Cheers,

[Edited by Warren Willson on Mar 13th, 2001 at 04:42 PM]

It's another of those instances where it would be difficult to establish intent. Therefore, intent is established for the umpire via opinion and practice. This is also used in other such areas of "unintentional accidents" ruled interference like an "accidentally" kicked ball by a coach in the box.

Now, shoulder to shoulder tangle/untangle is a whole different perspective. ;)