Tim in Jim's stich the 2nd baseman is chasing the ball and not picking it up or has it in his hand. It is also a 2nd baseman and not a pitcher.

Roder also states chasing, this pitcher wasn't chasing it, he either had it or was picking it up, fielding it, not chasing.

I don't need to and I won't name drop, but 4 people were asked to assist the conference commisioner in his decision making process, 3 of us were in agreement that it was int. 1 felt it was obs. I was the least senior of the 4, but 2 are CWS umpires and 1 a DI conference coordinator. I'll stick with the 2 that looked at the original video, talked with the 2 umpires, both called me after the game, and ruled on this specific play.

We do feel that pending the outcome of the protest, the NCAA would be wise to define chasing. If the ball is deflected, does chasing end when the fielder has the ball in hand or when it is in his immediate reach?

Wade,

R3 scored becuase OBS was the final calling and in college there is no longer type A or type B OBS. Since R3 crossed the plate during the initial play, his run was allowed.

Well, 3 of you blew it.

This is an enhanced full screen version played in super slow mo and the moment of OBS captured. The pitcher does not have possession.

Unfortunately my program cannot export this slow motion section. I might be able to convert it and do a better job, but the trip up is clear as day. The BR is tripped up and impeded prior to the pitcher having the ball. There is no need to guess on this play, the video captured it.. even scratchy sucky FLV shows it. If you have a better version, especially MPEG, I could tear it apart frame by frame or do a slow mo looping version of just this section.

http://img106.imageshack.us/img106/7383/t4tn9.jpg

For the purpose of obstruction, there is no distinction between fielders, including the pitcher. There is no way the pitcher was protected on this play, as his chance to field the ball was over when he deflected the ball. There are plays in which the pitcher is technically not a fielder, but not in the case of obstruction.

It was clear to me that the pitcher was still reaching for the ball when he altered the runner's path, and that the privilege to do so had expired.

The play that you are thinking about with F1 is when the pitcher deflects the ball and then the ball hits a base runner; however, another fielder has opportunity to make a play on the ball etc.,

On that play the pitcher is considered differently than if the ball hits another fielder and then deflects etc.,

I don't have my books but will find the references later.

Thanks
DAvid

Show us where.

NCAA 6-2-f. A fair-hit ball touches an umpire before touching a fielder and beforepassing all infielders, other than the pitcher, who have a reasonable chance to make a play;
PENALTY for f.—The ball is dead and the batter is awarded first base with a single. Runner(s) advance if forced.
A.R.—If a fair-hit ball touches an umpire after having passed a fielder other than the pitcher, or having been touched by a fielder, including the pitcher, the ball is in play.

NCAA 8-2-g. If a fair ball touches a base runner in fair territory before the ball has touched or passed all infielders, other than the pitcher, who have a reasonable chance to field the ball, the ball is dead, the runner is out and the batter-runner is awarded first base;

NCAA 8-5-d. The runner interferes intentionally with a throw or thrown ball, or interferes with a fielder who is attempting to field a batted ball. If a double play is likely, and the runner intentionally interferes with the fielder who is attempting to field the ball, both runner and batter-runner shall be declared out;
A.R. 1—If two fielders attempt to field a batted ball, the umpire shall determine which fielder is more likely to make the play and only that fielder is protected from interference by the runner.
A.R. 2—If a batted ball is deflected by the pitcher and another fielder has a legitimate play to retire a runner, the fielder is protected and a collision by a base runner results in interference.

I like this last AR because I think the writers of the rule never invisioned the pitcher deflecting it and then fielding it with the possibility of a collision. My entire bone of contention on the play is that the runner ran into the pitcher while he was down on a knee wither with the ball in his hand or in his immediate reach. He did not make contact with the runner and had it not been for the runner, he never would have touched him. The object of the defensive part of the game is to get the ball and put guys out. If he gets their first and is down on a knee doing his job, isn't that the object of the entire game?

Also, working 2 man from the working area on this play you are probably looking through the pitchers back. You don't have super slow motion or even real time video to look at on the play. You can't tell if he has the ball or not but he is on top of it. What would you call? In a game I am gonna grab the non ****ty end of this stick and get INT. I'll get an arguement, but not a protest. Espeacially when I am not 100% if he has the ball in his hand or not. I'll let you know what the ruling ends up being.

Wade,

I would gladly be wrong on the field with these 2 every day of the week. Because it would mean that I was on the field with 2 of the very best in the bussiness. Not that I rate that high, but I assure you they do. Just turn on your TV and catch a college game and they are probably on it, or open Reffere and you'll catch a pic of one or both of them.

That A/R is the same in all codes -- if another fielder has the chance to make a play, then that other fielder becomes the protected fielder. Each fielder gets "one bite at the apple."

I agree that the call on the field is difficult. If F1 has the ball, then it's a train wreck. I don't see how this play could be interference.

I can understand not being willing to rule OBS because you think the fielder may have the ball (in hindsight on video, it would turn out that your were wrong and that this was, indeed, OBS ... but you couldn't be blamed for missing a judgement call that close).

But how in the world would ANYONE justify interference on a runner who was running in the basepath inadvertently colliding with a fielder who had the ball and crossed his path? Surely INT is not even an option here unless BR pushed the fielder.

This is either nothing (F1 had the ball) or OBS (F1 did not have the ball) ... and based on the video the right call turns out to be OBS.

Also - I don't see anything protestable at all - it's judgement whether this was nothing or OBS - no rule was misinterpreted here.

Where in the rule book can I read about this train wreck thing? Jimmy never taught it to us, PBUC never taught it, NCAA does discuse it at its clinics or put it in its points of emphasis. I would like to read up on it. If you are referring to tangle-untangle as Jimmy teaches it, this is definitly not it.

Durham - in this case, "trainwreck" is a non-rulebook euphamism that we all understand.

In essence, it means that if this fielder has possession, you have nothing. Runner is not guilty of anything listed under the interference rule, and if the fielder has the ball, he's not guilty of anything listed under the obstruction rule. What's left? Play-on. (or "Nothing" or "Trainwreck")

A.R. 1—If two fielders attempt to field a batted ball, the umpire shall determine which fielder is more likely to make the play and only that fielder is protected from interference by the runner.
A.R. 2—If a batted ball is deflected by the pitcher and another fielder has a legitimate play to retire a runner, the fielder is protected and a collision by a base runner results in interference.

I would like to thank everyone for thier input on this one, 42 posts and no BS.
Could someone please tell me where the A.R is referenced from.

I'm trying to get my arms around this play, and trying to see where Durham is coming from.

For argument sake, suppose you ignore the initial muff, and you take this play from the point of where F1 is attempting to "field" the ball and he is prevented from doing so by the BR in the baseline. His contention is that because F1 is not treated as an infielder, he is 'protected' on this attempt to field the ball, albeit his second 'try' at it. Taken in this isolation, you could argue interference.

My question is can/should you ignore the initial attempt to field the ball and in essence protect the F1 in this case during his second try at fielding the ball? Taking this further, how many attempts would an F1 get at fielding a ball?

My initial judgement on this was obstruction, removing the F1's protection at the point of the initial muff and the distance he ran (chased) the ball to retrieve it, being more than a reach.

The AR's I listed came from the ESO PDF of the 2007 rule book. And I would have to agree that this is a great freaking post. We are all becoming better umpires with this one. BTW, just finished the NCAA quiz #3 and there were a few interference questions on it imagine that? This discussion helped me nail every one of them.

I can't wait for the ruling though and I really wish this hadn't happened with the pitcher, it would be so clear cut to me if it was with another fielder, but he is making me fight, damn, I hate pitchers.