interference???

[ggk]

R2, no outs. Line drive back at the pitcher that deflects off the pitcher’s knee and bounces over towards first base, near the foul line, but remains in fair territory. As the first-baseman is fielding the ball, the batter-runner runs over the defensive player. what is your ruling??

any difference between fed, ncaa and pro?? thx.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by ggk

R2, no outs. Line drive back at the pitcher that deflects off the pitcher’s knee and bounces over towards first base, near the foul line, but remains in fair territory. As the first-baseman is fielding the ball, the batter-runner runs over the defensive player. what is your ruling??

any difference between fed, ncaa and pro?? thx.

If F3 still had a play, then it's interference. Otherwise, it's obstruction.

[UmpJM]

ggk,

Under OBR and NCAA, if, in the judgment of the umpire, the F3 had a legitimate chance to obtain an out absent the interference, the BR is called out for interference, the ball is dead, any other runners return to their TOP base. If the F3 did NOT have a legitimate chance at an out, it is Obstruction (Type A), the ball is dead the BR awarded 1B and any other runners awarded the base they would have achieved absent the Obstruction.

Under FED, assuming no intent by either (& the runner could not have reasonably avoided the contact), it's a "train wreck", live ball, play the bounce.

JM

[LMan]

If the fielder is not "chasing" after the ball, ie, cleanly fielding a deflection from another player, he can be protected by the umpire from interference. J/R pg 99.

[DG]

"As the first-baseman is fielding the ball"

So it's interference. Let's read the line, not between the lines.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by CoachJM

ggk,

Under FED, assuming no intent by either (& the runner could not have reasonably avoided the contact), it's a "train wreck", live ball, play the bounce.

JM

Coach --

Do you have a FED reference for this? I think the rule is the same in all codes.

[UmpJM]

Bob,

I got that from the BRD (#317) referencing an Official FED Interpretation made by everyone's favorite FED interpreter. Struck me as a little odd, but no more so than some of the other FED interpretations.

JM