Obstruction or Interference? Tricky call

[UmpJM]

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,

I find the following case play from the MLBUM (Section 6.23, Case play #4, p.57) much more relevant to this particular play (my emphasis):

(4) With bases loaded, batter hits a sharp ground ball that deflects off of the shortstop and starts to roll away from him. As the shortstop starts to go after the ball, the runner from second collides with him.

Ruling: After the ball deflects off the shortstop, if the ball is within the fielder's immediate reach, the runner must avoid the fielder, and if contact occurs under those circumstances, interference shall be called and the runner declared out. (In this situation the fielder is still considered "in the act of fielding" the ball and has not "missed" as described in the Casebook Comments to Official Baseball Rule 2.00 (Obstruction).)

However, if the ball is not within reach of the fielder after it deflects off him (i.e., the fielder must chase after the ball), the fielder must then avoid the runner, and if contact occurs under those circumstances, obstruction shall be called under Official Baseball Rule 7.06(b).

Don't you?

JM

[Sal Giaco]

Originally Posted by CoachJM

Sal,

I find the following case play from the MLBUM (Section 6.23, Case play #4, p.57) much more relevant to this particular play (my emphasis):

...As the shortstop starts to go after the ball, the runner from second collides with him...

Don't you?

JM

JM,

Good example and I do agree, however, the key phrase (and also the INTENT of WHY this interpretation is worded this way is that the contact/collision occurred DURING the chase rather than AFTER he had reached the loose ball. The SPIRIT of the rule is to ensure that as long as a fielder is in the act of fielding a batted ground ball (and has a legitimate attempt to retire the runner) he MUST be protected REGARDLESS if the ball is initally deflected by himself or another fielder. Why should it matter if HE deflected the ball or SOMEONE else did? The wording of interpretation 6.23 (4) was written to illustrate an example of contact occurring as the fielder is "on his way to fielding" the ball, NOT "in the act of fielding the ball".

Ultimately, rules are put in place to create fair play and to not put either the defense or offense at an advantage or disadantage. I think we can agree that the basic premise behind interference is to protect the fielder while he is in the act of fielding a batted ball. If that is the INTENT of the rule, then, whether a ball is deflected or who deflects the ball or who ultimately fields that ball in IMMATERIAL as long as any ONE fielder is protected at the time he is considered to be in the act of fielding.

The Approved Rulings in the MLBUM were written to clairfy at WHAT POINT IN TIME the fielder is protected from interference. The plays listed that illustrate contact when a fielder is in the act of fielding a ball that is within his immediate reach are labeled as Interference and the plays that illustrate the contact occurrs as the fielder is either CHASING AFTER or MOVING IN THE DIRECTION of a deflected loose ball are considered Obstruction. Personally, I think when the NCAA issues it's final ruling on this play, it will probably be added as a A.R. in the NCAA Rule Book and/or the MLBUM A.R. for 2008. Just my opinion and please don't quote me on this.

[PFISTO]

I'm not sure if I will get any info back but I sent this clip to Jim Evans to see if we could get a ruling on this play.
Agian I would like to thank everyone who posted on this topic as this is how this forum was meant to be conducted. GOOD JOB..

[BigUmp56]

Originally Posted by PFISTO

I'm not sure if I will get any info back but I sent this clip to Jim Evans to see if we could get a ruling on this play.
Agian I would like to thank everyone who posted on this topic as this is how this forum was meant to be conducted. GOOD JOB..

If you'd like you can also send the clip to Rick Roder and see what he has to say.

[email protected]



Tim.

[SAump]

Originally Posted by Chris_Hickman

Here is the NCAA interp.

Rule 8-5-d AR 2, p. 94

Play A-A batted ball that deflects off the pitcher and the pitcher has to chase after it. The ball has come to rest near the running lane and the pitcher, who has arrived at the ball well before the batter-runner gets there, reaches down and picks it up and is then contacted by the batter-runner.

Interp #1: If the fielder gets to the ball well before the runner, the runner must avoid the fielder or the runner will be guilty of interference.

Interp #2: If the fielder gets to the ball, as the runner is arriving, then the fielder must avoid the runner or be guilty of obstruction. (See Rule 2, Interference, AR 4, p. 34). If, in the judgment of the umpire, the fielder does not have a legitimate chance to make a play on the ball, (the fielder was merely moving in the direction of the ball), obstruction should be the call.

In both Interps #1 and #2, treat the pitcher as any other fielder in this situation.

Tangle-untangle. The fielder had a legitimate chance to both field the ball and tag the runner out. I wouldn't call this obstruction. I am not convinced the runner's didn't have a choice to avoid the fielder who may have had a legitimate chance to field the ball and make a tag attempt within the 3 foot lane. The runner took a chance at wiping out the fielder's chance to field the ball cleanly and lost. I wouldn't call this interference. I am sure if the pitcher would not have fielded the ball cleanly, the runner would have gotten up and arrived safely at 1B. Just as it often happens at the plate, tangle-untangle the wreck.

[Durham]

Originally Posted by Chris_Hickman

Here is the NCAA interp.

Rule 8-5-d AR 2, p. 94

Play A-A batted ball that deflects off the pitcher and the pitcher has to chase after it. The ball has come to rest near the running lane and the pitcher, who has arrived at the ball well before the batter-runner gets there, reaches down and picks it up and is then contacted by the batter-runner.

Interp #1: If the fielder gets to the ball well before the runner, the runner must avoid the fielder or the runner will be guilty of interference.

Interp #2: If the fielder gets to the ball, as the runner is arriving, then the fielder must avoid the runner or be guilty of obstruction. (See Rule 2, Interference, AR 4, p. 34). If, in the judgment of the umpire, the fielder does not have a legitimate chance to make a play on the ball, (the fielder was merely moving in the direction of the ball), obstruction should be the call.

In both Interps #1 and #2, treat the pitcher as any other fielder in this situation.

The conference disallowed the protest and ruled obstruction as per the rule book at the time of the play, however the NCAA came up with the above as a result of this play and if it were to happen again today it could be ruled interference or obstruction based on your judgement of the play.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Durham

The conference disallowed the protest and ruled obstruction as per the rule book at the time of the play,

That's what we were trying to tell you

however the NCAA came up with the above as a result of this play and if it were to happen again today it could be ruled interference or obstruction based on your judgement of the play.

There's no way that F1 in the OP had the ball "well in advance" of the runner arrivign, so obstruction would still be the call.

[PeteBooth]

It would have been interesting to see if the Protest would have been disallowed if the ORIGINAL call or I should say the no call was NOT changed.

Also, I still would like to know how the PROS would rule

Pete Booth

[PFISTO]

Originally Posted by PeteBooth

It would have been interesting to see if the Protest would have been disallowed if the ORIGINAL call or I should say the no call was NOT changed.

Also, I still would like to know how the PROS would rule

Pete Booth

This is the reply I recieved from someone who was in the pros. I did not ask permission to post this ( I forgot to ask but I'm sure it wouldn't be a problem ) so I am a little uncomfortable saying who it was from.

Regarding your play: This is interference by the B-R. If the B-R is touched by a deflected ball, the ball remains alive and in play. However, if a runner or B-R (as in this case) interferes with a fielder in the act of fielding a deflected ball, he is out for the interference. In making this call, the umpire must be convinced that the fielder was in the immediate area of the ball and had a legitimate chance to make a play when the interference occurred. If this were not the case, this would be Type A obstruction. IS THIS THE PRO RULE???

[BigUmp56]

Originally Posted by PFISTO

This is the reply I recieved from someone who was in the pros. I did not ask permission to post this ( I forgot to ask but I'm sure it wouldn't be a problem ) so I am a little uncomfortable saying who it was from.

Regarding your play: This is interference by the B-R. If the B-R is touched by a deflected ball, the ball remains alive and in play. However, if a runner or B-R (as in this case) interferes with a fielder in the act of fielding a deflected ball, he is out for the interference. In making this call, the umpire must be convinced that the fielder was in the immediate area of the ball and had a legitimate chance to make a play when the interference occurred. If this were not the case, this would be Type A obstruction. IS THIS THE PRO RULE???

This person's interpretation flies in the face of both Evans and Roder. I don't know how much more I can say that would convince you that you're incorrect, and so is your former pro friend.


Tim.

[PFISTO]

Originally Posted by BigUmp56

This person's interpretation flies in the face of both Evans and Roder. I don't know how much more I can say that would convince you that you're incorrect, and so is your former pro friend.


Tim.

Tim,
Hey it's not a point of convincing me as this is only my second year. My posts are only an attempt to add info not to make a statement. I am sitting back and learning here. I respect your opinion and if I gave the impression I was disagreing with you that was not my intent.
Thanks Mike

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by tkaufman

and as he reaches down to pick up the ball near the line, the BR unintentionally collides with him,

Distinctly different from what started this thread.

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by Durham

The conference disallowed the protest and ruled obstruction as per the rule book at the time of the play, however the NCAA came up with the above as a result of this play and if it were to happen again today it could be ruled interference or obstruction based on your judgement of the play.

Thanks for the update. I'm glad to see they got it correct.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Chris_Hickman

Here is the NCAA interp.

Rule 8-5-d AR 2, p. 94

Play A-A batted ball that deflects off the pitcher and the pitcher has to chase after it. The ball has come to rest near the running lane and the pitcher, who has arrived at the ball well before the batter-runner gets there, reaches down and picks it up and is then contacted by the batter-runner.

Interp #1: If the fielder gets to the ball well before the runner, the runner must avoid the fielder or the runner will be guilty of interference.

Interp #2: If the fielder gets to the ball, as the runner is arriving, then the fielder must avoid the runner or be guilty of obstruction. (See Rule 2, Interference, AR 4, p. 34). If, in the judgment of the umpire, the fielder does not have a legitimate chance to make a play on the ball, (the fielder was merely moving in the direction of the ball), obstruction should be the call.

In both Interps #1 and #2, treat the pitcher as any other fielder in this situation.

Chris --

From where did you get this interp? I don't think it's in the current rules book, and I didn't see it the last time I was on ESO.

Thanks

[Durham]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Chris --

From where did you get this interp? I don't think it's in the current rules book, and I didn't see it the last time I was on ESO.

Thanks

It was emailed out by coordinators over the weekend as a result of this play.

BTW, I worked these same 2 teams last night and there were 5 comebackers that deflected off pitchers. Man was it funny to see. Nothing like the original play though.