Obstruction or Interference? Tricky call
 

OK this was just sent to me. Try and make the call as you would in a game then watch again if you want to think about it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NGIZ...elated&search=

Obstruction. A fielder chasing a deflected ball outside of a step and a reach from the ball's initial deflection point cannot be priveledged, so there's definitely no interference here.



Tim.

I think I like a train wreak here. The ball was obviously coming into the way, the runner made no attempt to move out of the way, one way or another, Pitcher made no attemt to obstuct the runner, just playing the ball. I think Train wreak play stands as an out.

3appleshigh,

Not a "train wreck" - it's Obstruction. What does intent have to do with the ruling on this play?

JM

In this situation, the runner is not obligated to change his path to the next base, since the fielder already had the opportunity to field the ball, and as BigUmp stated, the ball deflected more than a "step and a reach" away from him. Once that occurs, the fielder is no longer afforded protection. The correct call is Obstruction.

The fielder is no longer protected. Obstruction.

I agree about the stretch and reach but would F1 be considered a fielder?? I believe he would

In this scenario, yes.

PFISTO,

The F1 certainly is considered a fielder.

In this case, he is a fielder who is not in possession of the ball and, despite appearances, NOT "in the act of fielding". Therefore, he is guilty of obstruction for impeding the runner's progress while "chasing a loose ball".

JM

This was posted on some other board as well -- all the experienced umpires correctly ruled obstruction.

I've got obstruction. Looks like in this game the play standed as an out.

Obstruction all the way.

Peace

Interference
The act of an offensive player, umpire or nongame person that interferes with; physically or verbally hinders; confuses; or impedes any fielder
attempting to make a play. See specific rule sections for action to be taken: batter (6-2-d, 6-3-b, 7-11- f, k, l and n, 8-2-e, 8-5-l and p); batter-runner (7-11-l, m, o, p and q, 8-2-h, 8-5-e, o, p and q); runner (6-2-e and g, 6-4-b, 7-11-r and s, 8-2-g, 8-3-f and g, 8-5-d and k); coach (6-2-c, 8-3-j, 8-5-f and g); nongame personnel (4-8, 6-4-a, 7-11-t, 8-3-m); offensive team (5-2-d, 8-5-h and q); umpire (6-2-f, 6-3-a).

A.R. 1—If the umpire declares the batter, batter-runner or a runner out for interference, all other runners shall return to the last base that was touched legally at the time of the interference, unless otherwise provide by these rules. The ball is dead.
A.R. 2—If the batter-runner has not touched first base at the time of interference, all runners shall return to the base last occupied at the time of the pitch. If there was an intervening play made on another runner, all runners shall return to the base last touched at the time of interference.
A.R. 3—If a fielder has a chance to field a batted ball, but misplays it and while attempting to recover it, the ball is in the fielder’s immediate reach and the fielder is
contacted by the base runner attempting to reach a base, interference shall be called.
A.R. 4—If a fielder has a chance to field a batted ball, but misplays it and must chase after the ball, the fielder must avoid the runner. If contact occurs, obstruction shall be called.



The above is the NCAA rule. The fielder did not have a chance to field the ball and he did not misplay it, it hit him. Furthermore how can you call obstruction on someone that has the ball in their hand and then gets run into? Even if he doesn't quiet have the ball, AR3 states immediate reach, and the ball was that if not in the fielder's hand. This is interference as per AR3.

This looks like a high school game to me, but still the pitcher did have a chance to field the ball. The ball caromed off him because he didn't draw leather on the ball. That was his chance to field the ball. A better fielding pitcher would have made the play with ease.

The pitcher doinked the ball into the runner's path. The runner had every right to try for the base, and was under no obligation to avoid the pitcher. After all, the batter didn't hit the ball down the first base line, he hit it to the pitcher. The fact that the pitcher was too inept to field the ball is not the runner's fault.

Approved ruling #4 is all you need to look at to call this play correctly. As Steve mentioned, F1 had ample opportunity to attempt to field the ball, but chose to try a hockey style kick save instead. Not that it matters anyway as there's no distinction on a ball being deflected because the ball hit's a fielder or the fielder hit's the ball. Immediate reach is defined in the J/R as within a step and a reach of the ball's deflection point.



Tim.

1) iirc, F1 did not have the ball when the contact occured. If he did, then it's a train wreck.

2) AR3 applies only when the deflection keeps the ball in the immediate reach. As soon as F1 has to move, he's not protected, even when he gets back to within immediate reach of the ball.

One gem of a baseball video on obstruction vs. interference vs. tangle-untangle.

I'm with obstruction here also because he did make an attempt to play the ball (albeit with his foot). 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?

Let me try one here on a snowy Easter Sunday in Upstate NY (10 inches last night...):( . The pitcher may be protected in this play because the rubber is just like a rock - part of the field.

Well boys this was a JC game, Santa Rosa JC @ Consumnes River JC. The play occured in the bottom of the 8th with Consumnes down by one after some time the umpires changed the call from an out to OBS and scored the runner from 3rd and Consumnes won in the 9th. The game is under protest and they have yet to make a decision, so it is obviously not as clear cut as all of you seem to suggest. I'll let you know how the conference rules after they rule. The game was played on March 27. Those of you who know Tony Bloomfield from LA Harbor, he is the Consumnes coach and he was the one that convinced the umpires to change the call based on a different reference.

The other problem I have with the way that many of you are trying to defend OBS, is what do you call when the 2nd baseman boots it, chases it, gets it, then with possesion, the runner runs into the fielder. If I were a coach I would protest anything but obstruction per AR4, if you are telling me that is the way you read it here.

Common Sense and fair play, Interference.

It looked like the umpires were talked into changing the call by the 3rd base coach (no doubt the Skipper). He must have held the same view that the majority of us here hold. Of course the defensive coach protested the game, as the run from 3rd tied the game. My bet is that the protest will not be upheld, and the umpire's call will prove to be correct.

What is the difference between the pitcher booting it, and the 2nd baseman booting it? The pitcher had every opportunity to field his position, and did not. Do you really feel that the runner had no right to try for 1st base unimpeded? The pitcher should have allowed the runner to go by before attempting to field the ball a second time.

Once a fielder has the ball, it is impossible (or nearly so) for him to obstruct. In the play you describe above, it's probably "nothing", absent some blatant act such as malicious contact (that's not the NCAA word, I recognize) or attempt to hit the ball out of the glove, etc.

Maybe this will help. Here are two authoritative opinions that concur with what you've been told here. The first one is from Evans.

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 here's what Roder says:


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.


I don't see how your scenario with the second baseman applies here. In the play we're discussing the pitcher didn't have possession of the ball at the time of the contact. Trying to pull out the old CSFP argument for interference doesn't get it either here.


Tim.

Exactly - once the fielder has the ball, he is almost de facto making a play on the runner who is closing on him. So how can you call OBS? And INT would require a deliberate act by the runner, as bob says.

This is spiraling far down the TWP well....

Okay, I've slowed the film down, stopped and started it frame-by-frame, and analyzed it more than the Zapruder film. It is very clear to me that the pitcher did not have the baseball at the time he clearly obstructed the runner. I don't know where anyone is getting a different result here. The pitcher did not field the ball until after he had already blocked the runner's progress, altered his path, slowed him down, and caused him to be out when he should have beaten the play.

http://img406.imageshack.us/img406/6639/fp1jg4.gif

http://img103.imageshack.us/img103/6605/fp2ey4.gif

http://img341.imageshack.us/img341/3900/fp3zt0.gif

http://img341.imageshack.us/img341/3576/fp4gffe7.gif

http://img103.imageshack.us/img103/7888/fp5ms8.gif

Pretty clearly OBS IMO.

based upon the screen shots...this is obsrtruction...how can you possibly call the runner out in this sitch??

Based on the screen shots how can you say that F1 doesn't have the ball?

Steve, I am asking here and not stating as fact, but doesn't the rule book in various places make exceptions fpr the pitcher when it comes to fielding. Because he is so close and not always in a good position to field a batted ball. Like if we get hit and it passes him, it is interference and not a live ball. I am being serious here, not a smart a s s.

The only question I have is why they scored the runner from 3rd with the OBS call, but I cant see the runner there so I dont know the situation.

I really dont see how you have INT here. The BR is obviously tripping up and impeded by the dive in front of him for the ball, before possession. Thats a lot of leeway to give to Defense on a goofy play by them. There is no reason to give them that.

The ONLY way I can see INT is it sounds like the Offensive team is yelling for an Interference call :D Thats always funny. So maybe you want to give them what they are asking for???

I just don't see it at all.

DB-BR out for INT on a play where a fielder kicks the ball then dives directly in front of the runner to get it.???

Interesting POV..

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.

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.

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..

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

[email protected]



Tim.

Close play, I've got nothing then.
 

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.

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.

That's what we were trying to tell you


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.

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???

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.

Distinctly different from what started this thread.

87 Posts and Still no definitive answer
 

It's amazing that after 87 posts, including some references to MLB umpires and other gurus that we still don't have a definitive answer. I guess both answers are correct, if, in the opinion of the person making the call, they can justify their position through the use of the rule book. I must have watched the clip 20 times and saw something slightly different each time.

Maybe the rule book need to be clarified??

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

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

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.

Durham, thanks for starting this thread. It was very interesting to see the 'evolution' of this interp from its beginning, to the final word and rule book/case book addition.

In my opinion, these type of threads are much more valuable to us then the endless...' what kind of cup do you wear?' drivel.

While I didn't start it, it sure was enjoyable to be apart of the discussion. Hopefully it has helped us all become better equiped to discuse OBS/INT with a coach when we need to. The goal isn't to be right on a board; it is to be right on the field. The play definitly got most of us in the book and we all got better. Some would still rule this OBS and that is fine if they can defend it on the field, but some of us could now with this new interp rule it INT and be backed by the book. For those of you who think I am crazy for ruling INT on this play, it is like I tell my partners when they ask on the way out to the field if I have everything, "I have everything but my judgement. I left it at home again today."

[/QUOTE]

Bob perhaps this thread can be saved because IMO, it's probably one of the best threads on the internet in quite some time.

You could for all practical purposes had 3 different calls

1. Nothing
2. OBS which was the Final ruling according to the NCAA. Still awaiting an official PRO interp or
3. Interference

All 3 were presented with rules / authoritative opinion etc. and the thread as a whole was enjoyable not only to read but be a part of.

Next time there is a "flame war" perhaps the poster can be directed to a thread that actually serves a useful purpose.

Pete Booth

If I came across a little harsh that wasn't my intention, Mike. Time and time again we see authoritative opinions torn apart and argued against for no real reason other than ego. Here, for the first time in a long while we've had a discussion on a sticky situation where what we consider to be definitive interpretations disagree. The play presented from Harry's site is the first I've ever read that affords a fielder protection after a batted ball has been deflected more than a step and a reach from him. If I'm not mistaken it suggests that a fielder can regain protection in this situation after it was initially lost on the deflection once he gets back to within a step and a reach of the ball. I think I'll ask Rick Roder to take a look at the thread so we can get his opinion on this play.


Tim.

more replies
 

This is the response I recieved from Mr Rick Roder
Hi Mike,



The pitcher is chasing a deflected fielding try, so runner has the right of way. It is obstruction in my opinion. Here is the relevant passage from Jaksa/Roder manual:



A fielder is protected 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.



A fielder cannot be protected if he is chasing a batted ball that has been deflected or missed.



Please keep in mind that while Jaksa/Roder defines the act of fielding, the official rule codes do not. Thus there will certainly be arguments as to whether this is interference or obstruction. Which is precisely why J/R provides a definition…



Hope that helps,

Rick

Is Rick now requiring double posting or is there an echo in here?