these are all great points...I think I've changed some of my thoughts on this play after reading some of the posts...this could very possibly be interference...would love to see a clip...

Yes. He has to avoid the fielder.

Rule set
 

OBR: Safe after a hard collision and referrring to MLB video of an F4 {Mr. Vina} being trampled for stepping in front of a large man who didn't stop running along his established basepath. :cool:
NCAA: I don't know. :p
NFHS: Although I would likely want to rule safe, after reading anything written by Mr Jenkins, I must reconsider my position. ;)

IIRC, Vina stepped into the basepath to attempt a tag on (I'm thinking Ortiz but could be wrong). He had already fielded the ball and was attempting a play. In our original situation, the pitcher had not yet lost his "fielding a batted ball" protection, whereas Vina had.

Plus, we are not talking pro baseball here. As you know, they play by an entirely different set of contact rules than the amateurs do.

Albert Belle was the runner in question and he was suspended for the contact.

Yeah that's right, Belle. I remember now. I knew it was some gigantic player.

But the play itself stood. No interference. He was suspended for the viscous contact.

While I think I tend to agree that the pitcher was still fielding the ball and that interference should have been called for that reason, I think too often umpires call interference in Fed when the fielder dives at the runner and initiates the contact, saying that the runner had an obligation to attempt to avoid the contact.

I think we have to look at how the contact developed and whether the runner has a reasonable chance to anticipate where the contact is likely to occur. For the most part a sudden dive or lunge by a catcher cannot be anticipated and I have a hard time faulting the runner for not being able to react to it.

Everyone has made some valid points, and it is interesting they way the wind shifted direction by the second page of responses. :)

This type of situation is definitely, "had to be there", material.

Personally, I have always protected the fielder on a direct path to field the ball, and at the point where they are fielding the ball. But if their momentum carries them past that point of fielding the ball, I haven't protected them. And it this situation, that is what happened. I mean, how far do you allow the fielder past the point of fielding the ball, protection ?

Until he regains control over his momentum, and makes a new and separate move. If the pitcher exhibits body control, and then tries a tag, he is not protected, as in the Vina/Belle play. Vina was blocking Belle's baseline in an attempt to get a cheap double play, and Belle said "nope." He just hit Vina a little hard, that's all!:cool:

So, lets say F6 is playing deep, and runs hard forward to scoop up a low rolling grounder, well behind the runner's path, and his momentum takes him 3 or 4 additional steps into the path of a runner, who crashes into him. You're going to have the fielder protected for all those extra steps ?

I never would think to do that.

And to take it further, if the fielder never attempts to make a tag, because he still does not have control of his momentum when he collides with the runner, couldn't that be considered Obstruction ? Although, that would be a tough call to sell, since the fielder does have the ball.

I am actually pretty serious about learning how far to protect the fielder. I am sure this will come up again in the future for me.

Yes.

Absent some malicious or TWP act (e.g., player on the ground with the ball sticks out his leg to trip the runner going by so the fielder can get to his feet and make a tag), a player with the ball cannot commit obstruction.

Nick,
In the situation you describe, I much prefer the MLB rule where if the fielder has possession of the ball and is attempting to make a tag, if he gets directly in the path of a runner, he rightly should be run over.

Considering FED though, your words were the runner "plows into the pitcher, who is attempting to tag him." How the pitcher got to the point where he was attempting to tag the runner is irrelevant, the runner must avoid contact. While you state that you didn't think the runner could avoid the contact, his actions say the exact opposite. If the runner puts his arms up to brace for contact it can only be because he knows the contact is coming. One cannot brace for an impact that one does not see. The runner, thus knowing contact is imminent, must attempt to avoid the contact. In the time it took for the BR to bring up his arms and cross them, he could have just as easily made any movement to one side to avoid contact.

I have been in a very similar circumstance myself where a fielder, with ball in hand, was standing in my basepath. My instinct is not to avoid contact so I brought my arms up and tried to run the fielder over. I was rightly called out and ejected. Whatever the runners instinct may be, in FED, he has to avoid contact. Since he choose not to, I agree with the others who say the call should have been, TIME, That's Interference, he's out!

If the runner in your circumstance had tried to avoid the collision by turning or moving to one side in an attempt to get by the pitcher and there still was contact and F1 ends up on his butt, then I got nothing.

Just for the record, while Albert Belle was generally a putz, what isn't generally know about that play with Vina is that in that very same game, in an earlier inning, the exact same play happened to Belle. Belle was running from first and Vina fielded the ball, tagged Belle, who just gave himself up on the play, and Vina threw to first for a double play. When Belle got back to the bench, he got an earful from his manager (Hargrove I believe) for not trying to break up the play. When the same thing happened again later that game and Vina stood in Belle's way attempting to tag him, Belle rightfully ran him over. It was only because of Belle's much deserved reputation that he was later suspended for the play.