Obstruction or Interference? Tricky call

[David B]

Originally Posted by BigUmp56

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.

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

[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.

[PeteBooth]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by Sal Giaco

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.

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

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by Sal Giaco

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.

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.

[Sal Giaco]

[QUOTE=PeteBooth]

...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...

Pete Booth

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.

[PeteBooth]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by Sal Giaco

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

[BigUmp56]

[QUOTE=PeteBooth]

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

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.

[LMan]

Yeah, but where was the gyroball in all this?

[RPatrino]

I definitely saw the pitch rise on that video.

[UmpJM]

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:

...After a fielder has made an attempt to field a ball and missed, he can no longer be in the “act of fielding” the ball. ...

From J/R:

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.

From JEA:

Situations: The batter hits a ground ball to the second baseman...he deflects the ball and it rolls several feet from him The runner from first collides with the second baseman as he goes after the ball. Is this interference by the runner?

RULING: On the contrary...this is obstruction by the second baseman. Since he had a chance to field the ball but muffed it out of reach...he may not impede the runner. (According to pro interpretations, a fielder still has a right to field the batted ball if it is in his "immediate reach"...the guideline generally used is “a step and a reach.”

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

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by RPatrino

I definitely saw the pitch rise on that video.

LOL.....and the beat goes on.

[PFISTO]

Originally Posted by Durham

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.

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

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by PFISTO

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.

[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..