Bob,

You indicate that the fielder might be protected if he is not chasing after a loose ball. Isn't that what I put in the OP? The batted ball is deflected by F1 and rolling towards F4 when F4 and R1 collide. Is F4 still protected when he is playing the ball or is it obstruction on R1?

No. You wrote: R1 is running towards second and there is a collision with F4 as he is coming in to play the ball.

There is a difference between coming in to play a batted ball and chasing a loose ball.

In your OP, as written, we have interference on the runner.

So are you saying that a batted ball remains a batted ball until it is either being chased by a defensive player that has already touched it(in which case it is a loose ball but only for that defensive player) or the defense has had control of the ball(in which case it is a loose ball to all defensive players).

I think that the crucial judgment call is whether the ball has deflected off a player or the player has misplayed the ball (and it's then a loose ball). The former leaves the fielding player's protection intact. In your OP you describe the ball being deflected, and hence the answers you received.

tibear,

Sorry for confusing the issue. Like I said before, the others are correct that in your play this is interference. What we're discussing here is the transferrence of priveledge from one fielder to another on a batted ball, even one that's been deflected by the fielder you first judged to have priveledge. If another fielder (F4 in your play) has a legitimate chance to retire a runner after a deflection by someone else (F1 in your play), the burden falls on the runner to avoid interference. In other words the priveledge has been transferred from F1 to F4. But, in instances where a fielder deflects the ball himself and begins to chase the ball, that fielder is no longer considered to be priveledged, and now has to avoid obstructing the runner.


Tim.

The Deej took one to the back of the head on the basepaths? I'll have to ask him about that.:p Could you cite fo me?

Originally Posted by GarthB
That's the problem. It IS beyond you, whereas a thinking, experienced umpire would know why.

Haven't you ever wondered why only F-ump and another troll or two support your error laden posts while the rest of the posters, including the more reasonable ones, recognize them for what they are?

It is a shame that bright minds belittle their contributions by twittering like teenaged girls in a school bathroom and finding humor in abusing one of the very few, young participants on the forum. Speaking only for myself, I support education, critical discussion and maturity in action.

Not on the basepaths, it was working the dish with his back turned to the ball that caused Donovan to get plunked in the back of the head. He made no bones about letting us know this, along with mentioning he'd been hit "dozens" of times by batted balls while working the bases. Get him out to a clinic or two, Walter.


Tim.

"What if he runs into the umpire going after a batted ball?" SteponTyler asks?

I myself never go after batted balls when I umpire.

In the sentence structure, "he" was the subject, so it was "he" that ran after the batted ball, not the umpire. Nice try though.:)

Sorry, Steve, but you're wrong. The phrase "going after a batted ball" modifies what immediately precedes it: in this case, "the umpire."

Exactly. What we have here is a misplaced gerund phrase. When discussing this with students I use the classic, "The soldiers snuck up on the enemy crawling on their bellies."

When dangling, don't use participles.

So, to make the sentence grammatically correct you could insert the word "while" between "umpire" and "going for a batted ball," correct?

Paging Mr. Eddings, Mr. Doug Eddings.