The play Sal is talking about is the only time that a deflection still becomes a batted ball etc., but the rule makers included that this only is if the ball is deflected by the pitcher.

The reasoning I'm sure is that the pitcher doesn't have time to react like other fielders.

To try and apply that to any batted ball that is deflected is a reach IMO.

Thanks
DAvid

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):

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.

[QUOTE]Sal good post but I disagree with your analysis.

In general the rules favor the offense. The rule-makers wanted to add excitement into the game that's why B1 can over-run first base.

In addition, in general the rules do NOT FAVOR the team that erred.

The intent of the rule was as others pointed out, if the fielder misplays the ball but it is within a step and reach then he is still protected, however, once the fieder "boots the ball" and has to chase it there is no longer protection and depending upon the situation could be guilty of OBS.

Using your theory, the defense is going to get a "second shot" even though they committed an error.

In the tape at least the way I viewed it especially in fast motion, each party was doing what they were supposed to and we had a good ole fashion train wreck.

I hope the final result of the protest will be posted here.

Pete Booth

No, not at all. This is a LONG way from what the "transfer of protection" thing was supposed to imply. You're taking the transfer of protection clause and warping it around so that any fielder chasing a deflected batted ball can now be protected --- if this were the case, then why do we even need "Step and a reach" to be taught. This "transfer" SURELY cannot protect a fielder who has deflected the ball 30 feet and is still chasing it. You seem to be throwing the blanket WAY too wide on this one.

[QUOTE=PeteBooth]
Pete,

Judging by the video, I would say that the batted ball was deflected by the pitcher and not "misplayed or booted". The only shot the pitcher really had to field the ball is after he ran it down at the end of the play when the collision/contact occured. I guess we could go on forever on this... let's just wait to see what Paranto and the NCAA rule and go from there.

[QUOTE]Sal not only do I want to hear the final ruling from the NCAA but it would be intersting to see how the PROS would rule as well.

In any event not to change the subject but this thread should be the "spring board" for all threads. We had different views supported by different intepretations and no "flame wars" just good old fashion baseball talk which is what the discussion Forums should be all about.

Pete Booth

[QUOTE=PeteBooth]I absolutely agree with you, Pete. It was refreshing to have a great discussion without all the posturing that usually takes place here. Everyone is to be commended for acting like "brothers-in-blue."


Tim.

Yeah, but where was the gyroball in all this?

I definitely saw the pitch rise on that video.

Sal,

I too am curious about how this protest will be decided.

A couple of other points that support my opinion that this should be properly ruled Obstruction:

From the (OBR) Rule 2.0 Defrinition of Obstruction:

From J/R:

From JEA:

Now in the subject video clip, it appeared to me that the runner was impeded by the F1 well before he gained possession of the ball and well before the F1 was within reach of the ball. The contact didn\'t occur until the F1 was within "a step and a reach", but by my read, the fielder does not regain his protection because he has gotten "close" to the deflected loose ball he is chasing. And contact is not required for there to be Obstruction - in my view, the runner was obstructed well before the contact

JM

LOL.....and the beat goes on.:D

Man I know I\'m showing my ignorance but what is ESO.... And where can I get a copy.
Thanks

He\'s referring to the NCAA on line. Go to...

http://www.eofficials.com/

You have to register, which is free. Then, on the left, click on "NCAA" under the "Affiliates Area". Then click on "Mens Baseball". That\'ll get you to the NCAA rulebook, interpretations, all sorts of goodies.

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..