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

Varsity Playoff. I have the plate. R1, no outs.

This is a really big game between the two top teams in the league. Defense is down by 4 runs.

Batter hits a high bouncing grounder up the 1st base line. Ball is tracking parallel to the line, about 2 feet in fair territory.

Pitcher runs to field the ball. He jumps up in the air and catches the ball at the top of a high hop. He lands directly in the base path, right in front of the runner, with the ball.

The batter has no time to avoid contact, so he (in my opinion) instinctively crossed his arms in front of his body, and plows into the pitcher, who is attempting to tag him.

During contact, the ball comes loose, and ends up near the Pitcher's Mound. Pitcher goes down on his butt, runner staggers for a few steps, and then makes his way to tag 1st base.

During all this, I indicate a fair ball. My partner, who had moved in toward the play from B, calls the batter Safe.

As you can imagine, we had a major blowout with the defensive manager. I talked with my partner, and we both agreed that the pitcher fielded the ball outside the running path of the batter, so the batter did not interfere with the defense fielding the ball. That the pitcher stepped into the batters running path, at a point that did not give the batter the opportunity to avoid contact, so we did not have Intentional/Malicious Contact on the batter. So the runner was Safe.

We ran through all of this with the Defensive coach, but to no avail. I ended up telling him, that's the way it stands. Lets play ball.

Never heard a word out of the Offensive coach.

Then, I hear from the stands, "Hey Blue, don't you know the batter has to stay out of that running lane or he's out ? Why do you think they paint those lines there ? You are horrible !"

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!

Sometimes the crowd makes me laugh!

Train wrecks are a part of the game!

Must have been an ex-coach in the stands :D
When will people ever learn?

thanks
David

Well done, methinks.

I had a verrry similar one last year, which I also had as a trainwreck between 2B and 3B, but somehow, F6 managed to tag R2 out. However, F6, an alert lad, chucked it homeward to retire R3, who showed poor baserunning skills (play began with R2 and R3 only).

Off. coach wanted "interference" on F6, a dead ball, and no one called out.

Go figger.

Ace in CT

He jumps up in the air and catches the ball at the top of a high hop. He lands directly in the base path, right in front of the runner, with the ball.

. . we both agreed that the pitcher fielded the ball outside the running path of the batter, so the batter did not interfere with the defense fielding the ball.


What's the pitcher supposed to do - stop in mid air and let the runner go by?

I'd be out there screaming too.

The offensive coach was in his dugout laughing his butt off.

MLBUM 6.1: Note that under the Official Baseball Rules, a fielder is protected while in the act of fielding a batted ball. In addition, a fielder is also protected while in the act of making a play after having fielded a batted ball. If, after a player has fielded a batted ball but before he is able to throw the ball, a runner hinders or impedes such fielder, the runner shall be called out for interference."

I don't think that rule applies to an immediate tag play on the runner in going to 1B...at least that would be my interpretation

I realize train wrecks happen a lot and this may only be in the way YOU worded this however, the runner would have had to know, that he was going to run into the pitcher, if he reacted by bringing his arms up.

The arms do not get raised instinctively, unless the brain instructs them to.

So then you have to ask, was the player really protecting hisself or plowing into the pitcher. Its a fine line and I probably would have had to been there however, from your description I would have argued the call also, because the player did interfer with the pitchers ability to make a play.

Interesting. "If, after a player has fielded a batted ball but before he is able to throw the ball, " doesn't apply to plays at first base....

hmmmmmmm.

And what's the runner supposed to do when a fielder steps and/or lands directly in front of him? Immediately come to halt?

My take --

IF BR really couldn't avoid, the F1 was likely still in the act of fielding. (Supported by the "leaps and comes down in BR's path" statements). Interference on BR.

If F1 fielded the ball, then moved into the path (supported by other statements), then BR has to anticipate the tag and legally attempt to avoid (or give-up, etc). BR out (and since the ball got away, interference).

Either way, I have BR out and R1 returning, at least as I envision the play(s).

Sorry, the burden is all on the runner here, until the 'act of fielding the ball' + Garth's MLBUM addendum has been completed.

As with most of these type plays we would have to be there, but IMO "train wrecks" at first base are normally caused by a bad throw from say F6 which takes F3 into the path of the on coming runner and they both collide. Unless one of the parties did something "extra" that is ruled a 'train wreck"

Your play is different. My question to you would be this?

Was F1 the protected fielder?

I would say from your OP that F1 was the protected fielder and in that case I have

1. TIME
2. That's interference
3. The batter turned runner out

In addition if the fielder meaning F1 has the ball and was applying a tag attempt and the batter tunrned runner "plowed" into him, then even if you didn't rule Interference, I would have

1. TIME
2. Malicious Contact
3. The BR out

In HS, FED does not want runners "plowing into one another'. In NCAA the terminology would be "was the collision avoidable"

If as you say you felt that the BR's intention was not to injure you would not necessarily have to eject. It's no different, then F2 standing at the plate waiting to apply a tag and R3 comes barreling or plowing into F2 and the ball dislodges. You would call an out on that play.

Bottom line: As soon as we judge which fielder is protected on a batted ball, the protection remains in tact unless the fielder boots the ball (more than a step and reach away) or the fielder releases the ball.

Sounds like Interference would have been the correct call.

Pete Booth

With the ball bouncing along the line and the runner running, the runner has to be able to see that the ball will be played by somebody! As soon as he brought his arms up, he telegraphed his intent. If he had time to do that, he had time to avoid.:D

I got at least one out and an eject!

The running lane is not there to give the runner special privileges while running in it. It is there as a demarcation of where he is supposed to be running in the event of his possible interference with the fielding of a thrown ball at first base. The fact that the pitcher came down with the ball in his running lane is irrelevant. The runner still has to try to avoid the tag, not run the pitcher down.

My question is, how does the runner not anticipate a collision? Isn't he watching where he's running, or is he running with his head down with blinders on? Instead of crossing his arms to protect himself (uh-huh), he would have been better served by altering his path to avoid a tag.

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.