1) iirc, F1 did not have the ball when the contact occured. If he did, then it's a train wreck.

2) AR3 applies only when the deflection keeps the ball in the immediate reach. As soon as F1 has to move, he's not protected, even when he gets back to within immediate reach of the ball.

One gem of a baseball video on obstruction vs. interference vs. tangle-untangle.

I'm with obstruction here also because he did make an attempt to play the ball (albeit with his foot). What have you got if the ball hit the rubber, not the pitcher's foot? Who do you protect as the pitcher chases the ball then?

Let me try one here on a snowy Easter Sunday in Upstate NY (10 inches last night...):( . The pitcher may be protected in this play because the rubber is just like a rock - part of the field.

Well boys this was a JC game, Santa Rosa JC @ Consumnes River JC. The play occured in the bottom of the 8th with Consumnes down by one after some time the umpires changed the call from an out to OBS and scored the runner from 3rd and Consumnes won in the 9th. The game is under protest and they have yet to make a decision, so it is obviously not as clear cut as all of you seem to suggest. I'll let you know how the conference rules after they rule. The game was played on March 27. Those of you who know Tony Bloomfield from LA Harbor, he is the Consumnes coach and he was the one that convinced the umpires to change the call based on a different reference.

The other problem I have with the way that many of you are trying to defend OBS, is what do you call when the 2nd baseman boots it, chases it, gets it, then with possesion, the runner runs into the fielder. If I were a coach I would protest anything but obstruction per AR4, if you are telling me that is the way you read it here.

Common Sense and fair play, Interference.

It looked like the umpires were talked into changing the call by the 3rd base coach (no doubt the Skipper). He must have held the same view that the majority of us here hold. Of course the defensive coach protested the game, as the run from 3rd tied the game. My bet is that the protest will not be upheld, and the umpire's call will prove to be correct.

What is the difference between the pitcher booting it, and the 2nd baseman booting it? The pitcher had every opportunity to field his position, and did not. Do you really feel that the runner had no right to try for 1st base unimpeded? The pitcher should have allowed the runner to go by before attempting to field the ball a second time.

Once a fielder has the ball, it is impossible (or nearly so) for him to obstruct. In the play you describe above, it's probably "nothing", absent some blatant act such as malicious contact (that's not the NCAA word, I recognize) or attempt to hit the ball out of the glove, etc.

Maybe this will help. Here are two authoritative opinions that concur with what you've been told here. The first one is from Evans.

Situations:

The batter hits a ground ball to the second baseman...he deflects the ball and it rolls several feet from him The runner from first collides with the second baseman as he goes after the ball. Is this interference by the runner?

RULING:

On the contrary...this is obstruction by the second baseman. Since he had a chance to field the ball but muffed it out of reach...he may not impede the runner. (According to pro interpretations, a fielder still has a right to field the batted ball if it is in his "immediate reach"...the guideline generally used is “a step and a reach.”



Now here's what Roder says:


A fielder cannot be privileged if he is chasing a batted ball that has been deflected or missed. If, however, he is trying to field a ball that has been deflected by another fielder, he can be privileged.


I don't see how your scenario with the second baseman applies here. In the play we're discussing the pitcher didn't have possession of the ball at the time of the contact. Trying to pull out the old CSFP argument for interference doesn't get it either here.


Tim.

Exactly - once the fielder has the ball, he is almost de facto making a play on the runner who is closing on him. So how can you call OBS? And INT would require a deliberate act by the runner, as bob says.

This is spiraling far down the TWP well....

Okay, I've slowed the film down, stopped and started it frame-by-frame, and analyzed it more than the Zapruder film. It is very clear to me that the pitcher did not have the baseball at the time he clearly obstructed the runner. I don't know where anyone is getting a different result here. The pitcher did not field the ball until after he had already blocked the runner's progress, altered his path, slowed him down, and caused him to be out when he should have beaten the play.

http://img406.imageshack.us/img406/6639/fp1jg4.gif

http://img103.imageshack.us/img103/6605/fp2ey4.gif

http://img341.imageshack.us/img341/3900/fp3zt0.gif

http://img341.imageshack.us/img341/3576/fp4gffe7.gif

http://img103.imageshack.us/img103/7888/fp5ms8.gif

Pretty clearly OBS IMO.

based upon the screen shots...this is obsrtruction...how can you possibly call the runner out in this sitch??

Based on the screen shots how can you say that F1 doesn't have the ball?

Steve, I am asking here and not stating as fact, but doesn't the rule book in various places make exceptions fpr the pitcher when it comes to fielding. Because he is so close and not always in a good position to field a batted ball. Like if we get hit and it passes him, it is interference and not a live ball. I am being serious here, not a smart a s s.

The only question I have is why they scored the runner from 3rd with the OBS call, but I cant see the runner there so I dont know the situation.

I really dont see how you have INT here. The BR is obviously tripping up and impeded by the dive in front of him for the ball, before possession. Thats a lot of leeway to give to Defense on a goofy play by them. There is no reason to give them that.

The ONLY way I can see INT is it sounds like the Offensive team is yelling for an Interference call :D Thats always funny. So maybe you want to give them what they are asking for???

I just don't see it at all.

DB-BR out for INT on a play where a fielder kicks the ball then dives directly in front of the runner to get it.???

Interesting POV..