Ignoring the initial muff changes the entire play, and no, you can not ignore it, as it causes completely different rules to come into play.

The only time you might have nothing is if the timing of the play would be such that you'd have the fielder tagging the runner out...that would be my only argument to no Obsruction here...but that's assuming...now, that being said, take this from an interpretive standpoint here...this is obstruction all the way as it plays out...you can't possibly call interference here...if you do...good luck on your protested game and have fun filling out your ejection form...

That has to be some kind of record.







Okay, let the BS begin.:D

Let's use a football terminology for a minute.

Is there enough 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

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.

Interference
 

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).

Obstruction or Interference
 

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.

First, the ball can't be called foul because F1 touched it in fair territory.

Here's my problem with this. Don't you have to ignore the fact that the pitcher had to run maybe 10 - 15 feet to take his second shot at securing possession of the ball in order to have interference here? Or does the pitcher have special protection in this case?

How about this sitch? R1, hard grounder up the middle. F6 takes it off the chest, the ball caroms toward first, and travels about 10 feet toward 1b, with F6 in hot pursuit. At this point R1 and F6 collide in the baseline, a) with the ball still about 3 ft from F6, or b) just as F6 is trying to grab the ball on the ground.

Is this a different scenario?

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.

I was answering the second scenario "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?" whereby the ball hit the rubber first, then the pitcher chased it. Assuming everything else is the same, the first time the pitcher touched the ball he and the ball were in foul territory, hence a foul ball.

In that case you are correct. I missed the alternate scenario.

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.

I can understand that. The main point is the Umps on the field got it correct that day. And admittedly the call is much easier slow mo/freeze frame- but the umps on the field got it right. The thing now is the protest. They DO have the benefit of slow mo freeze frame review in the protest. There is no reason to make the wrong call for the Protest. There is no doubt in the frame I froze that the runner is in an unnatural impeded position.

The only guess now is whether they will set a precedent in regards to application of rules.

Your's is a compelling argument, Sal. I'm still convinced that a priveledged fielder can no longer be considered in the act of fielding a batted ball after it's been deflected more than a step and a reach away from him. Even if he's chased the ball and has it within those constraints at the time of the hindrance or contact this should hold true.


Tim.