Train wrecks happen in baseball...Get over it !

[SanDiegoSteve]

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.

[waltjp]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

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.

[SanDiegoSteve]

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.

[Eastshire]

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.

[nickrego]

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 ?

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by nickrego

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!

[nickrego]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

Until he regains control over his momentum, and makes a new and separate move.

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.