Obstruction or Interference? Tricky call

[SanDiegoSteve]

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.

[wadeintothem]

Pretty clearly OBS IMO.

[johnnyg08]

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

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Durham

Furthermore how can you call obstruction on someone that has the ball in their hand and then gets run into? Even if he doesn't quiet have the ball, AR3 states immediate reach, and the ball was that if not in the fielder's hand. This is interference as per AR3.

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.

[SAump]

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

[BigTex]

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?

[Carl Cramer]

Originally Posted by BigTex

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.

[Durham]

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.

Originally Posted by BigTex

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?

Neither one - foul ball - if you noticed the ball crossed the foul line. Since it was never touched and never passed a fielder, foul ball.

[PeteBooth]

Let's use a football terminology for a minute.

Is there enough

indisbutable evidence

to over-turn the call.

Granted we do not use IR in baseball, but the fact that some posters pieced together or enlarged the picture to get a better view tell one that this was not an easy call. This happened in fast motion.

IMO, you have either OBS or nothing. I do not see interference here because F1 is not a protected fielder. As I first looked at the film my first reaction was a no call meaning train wreck because the ball F1 and runner were approximately at the same place same time.

Yes F1 did not have actual possession of the ball at precisely the time the BR contacted him but it was close. That's why you could rule OBS or nothing. In fast motion I would have allowed the play to stand meaning No call.

I am surpised the umpires changed the call because IMO it's not like this was a clear-cut case of OBS.

Pete Booth

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by PeteBooth

IMO, you have either OBS or nothing. I do not see interference here because F1 is not a protected fielder. As I first looked at the film my first reaction was a no call meaning train wreck because the ball F1 and runner were approximately at the same place same time.

Yes F1 did not have actual possession of the ball at precisely the time the BR contacted him but it was close. That's why you could rule OBS or nothing. In fast motion I would have allowed the play to stand meaning No call.

I am surpised the umpires changed the call because IMO it's not like this was a clear-cut case of OBS.

Pete Booth

See, I'd default the other way. Defense had their shot (brief as it was) and their protection is OVER. For this to NOT be OBS, I'd need to be POSITIVE that the fielder had possession of the ball. Unless he does, he is obligated to give the runner the right of way. Benefit of doubt should be on the runner's side on a case like this (or put the other way - the burden of proof (of possession) is on the side of the defense).

And we don't know what they based the changed call on - surely not the replay we've seen, so someone must have seen SOMEthing, or the umpire making the initial call must have realized that based on what HE saw, his initial reaction was not within the rules.

[Sal Giaco]

From MLBUM (2002) Example #4, pg. 51

Runner on first base, one out. Runner is running on the next pitch. The batter hits a ground ball back toward the pitcher. The pitcher deflects the ball in the direction of the second baseman. As the runner is running directly toward second base, he unintentionally bumps into the second baseman, who is attempting to field the deflected ball.

Ruling: Interference is called and the runner from first is declared out. Even though deflected, this is still a batted ball and the runner must avoid the fielder. The batter-runner is awarded first base.

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by Sal Giaco

From MLBUM (2002) Example #4, pg. 51

Runner on first base, one out. Runner is running on the next pitch. The batter hits a ground ball back toward the pitcher. The pitcher deflects the ball in the direction of the second baseman. As the runner is running directly toward second base, he unintentionally bumps into the second baseman, who is attempting to field the deflected ball.

Ruling: Interference is called and the runner from first is declared out. Even though deflected, this is still a batted ball and the runner must avoid the fielder. The batter-runner is awarded first base.

We would all love for you to tell us how this ruling applies at all to the situation at hand, what rule is being used, and how that rule applies to this sitch. (Hint - it doesn't - but you won't see why unless you actually read the rule).

[BigUmp56]

Originally Posted by Sal Giaco

From MLBUM (2002) Example #4, pg. 51

Runner on first base, one out. Runner is running on the next pitch. The batter hits a ground ball back toward the pitcher. The pitcher deflects the ball in the direction of the second baseman. As the runner is running directly toward second base, he unintentionally bumps into the second baseman, who is attempting to field the deflected ball.

Ruling: Interference is called and the runner from first is declared out. Even though deflected, this is still a batted ball and the runner must avoid the fielder. The batter-runner is awarded first base.

Sal,

The play you've cited deals with transferred protection on a deflected ball. I think Roder does a good job of explaining when a fielder loses his protection and whether or not another fielder can have that protection transferred.

Runner is out for interference when:


Such runner hinders a privileged (protected)fielder during a fair or catchable batted ball. There are two instances where contact between a runner and privileged fielder can be incidental. For these exceptions, see below.


A fielder is privileged if he is trying to field a batted ball, and he is given priority to field it, and he is not chasing a deflected or missed fielding try. These concepts are defined as follows:

A fielder is "trying to field (or "in the act of fielding”) a ball when:

a. He is positioning himself for the purpose of trying to glove a rapidly approaching ball, or

b. He is actually gloving the ball, or has gloved the ball and, without having to take steps, is trying to gain possession of the ball, or

c. He is actually throwing the ball, or completing his throwing motion after throwing the ball ("following through").

NOTE: "Trying to field" does not include a fielder's attempt to tag, nor the actual flight of the thrown ball. These are treated in relationship to interference under "Thrown Ball." A fielder's "try to field” ends immediately upon missing or deflecting a batted ball.

If, at a given time, two or more fielders are expecting to field a batted ball, the one who is in a better position to field it (or, who is nearer the ball) is given priority over the other fielders. Only one fielder can have priority at a given time, but priority can be immediately taken from one fielder and given to another. On fly balls, it is usually not practical or necessary to give any fielder priority until the fly has reached its highest point.

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.


Your play from the MLBUM is interference because another fielder had a play on the ball after the deflection. In our play there is no chance for another fielder to make a play after the deflection. Since the pitcher has lost his protection, there cannot be interference on the play.



Tim.

[Sal Giaco]

Originally Posted by BigUmp56

Sal,

The play you've cited deals with transferred protection on a deflected ball. I think Roder does a good job of explaining when a fielder loses his protection and whether or not another fielder can have that protection transferred.

Runner is out for interference when:


Such runner hinders a privileged (protected)fielder during a fair or catchable batted ball. There are two instances where contact between a runner and privileged fielder can be incidental. For these exceptions, see below.


A fielder is privileged if he is trying to field a batted ball, and he is given priority to field it, and he is not chasing a deflected or missed fielding try. These concepts are defined as follows:

A fielder is "trying to field (or "in the act of fielding”) a ball when:

a. He is positioning himself for the purpose of trying to glove a rapidly approaching ball, or

b. He is actually gloving the ball, or has gloved the ball and, without having to take steps, is trying to gain possession of the ball, or

c. He is actually throwing the ball, or completing his throwing motion after throwing the ball ("following through").

NOTE: "Trying to field" does not include a fielder's attempt to tag, nor the actual flight of the thrown ball. These are treated in relationship to interference under "Thrown Ball." A fielder's "try to field” ends immediately upon missing or deflecting a batted ball.

If, at a given time, two or more fielders are expecting to field a batted ball, the one who is in a better position to field it (or, who is nearer the ball) is given priority over the other fielders. Only one fielder can have priority at a given time, but priority can be immediately taken from one fielder and given to another. On fly balls, it is usually not practical or necessary to give any fielder priority until the fly has reached its highest point.

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.


Your play from the MLBUM is interference because another fielder had a play on the ball after the deflection. In our play there is no chance for another fielder to make a play after the deflection. Since the pitcher has lost his protection, there cannot be interference on the play.



Tim.

Tim,

Excellent post with great references. I think, however, we need to understand the INTENT or ORIGIN of the MLBUM approved ruling. Personally, I believe the A.R. was put into place to emphasize that just because a batted ground ball is deflected, the protection of the defense's ability to further make that play is NOT nullified . Anytime a defensive player is in the act of fielding a batted ground ball, he will be protected against any collision initiated by a runner REGARLESS if the ball was deflected or not. The only time a defensive player is not protected is if the collision occures while he is chasing or in route to a deflected or misplayed ball. The video clearly shows that the collision occurred after the chase and not DURING the chase). The whole "transfer of protection" is added to soley to illustrate that ANY fielder that is in the act of fielding the ball regardless if it was deflected, who deflected it and where & who it is deflected to, is still protected as long as he is in the act of fielding the ball.