Interference, Obstruction or Train Wreck??

[tibear]

Had a discussion with a friend the other day about the following:

Situation 1: R1, less then two out. Batter hits a ground ball back up the middle, hits the pitcher and is rolling towards F4. R1 is running towards second and there is a collision with F4 as he is coming in to play the ball. What's the call?

Sit 2:Would it make any difference if F4 isn't running but standing still when R1 and F4?

Sit 3:Would it make any difference if the ball never touches the ground when R1 and F4 collide? i.e. Ball is hit and then deflected by F1 towards F4?

My inclination is:
Sit 1: Obstruction
Sit 2: Interference because I would assume R1 intentionally hit F4.
Sit 3: Interference on R1.

Depending on the play I might call a double play on the interference calls.

[UmpJM]

tibear,

The criteria to be used in determining whether this is interference or obstruction is whether, in the umpire's judgement, the F4 had a legitimate chance to retire a runner absent the collision.

If he he judged that he did, it's interference. If he judged that he didn't, it's obstruction.

Whether the ball is in flight or not or whether F4 is moving or standing still is at best peripherally relevant.

The only way you get two outs on the play is if the umpire judges both that the F4 had a play and that the R1 intentionally ran into him to break up the double play - possible, but a bit of a stretch in my opinion.

JM

P.S. Why on earth would you judge intent (on the part of R1) based on the F4 standing still?

[BigUmp56]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

tibear,

The criteria to be used in determining whether this is interference or obstruction is whether, in the umpire's judgement, the F4 had a legitimate chance to retire a runner absent the collision.

If he he judged that he did, it's interference. If he judged that he didn't, it's obstruction.

I agree wholeheartedly with both you and Garth, John. At least for the play as presented, I do. However, a fielder can have a legitimate chance to retire a runner and not be priveledged if he's chasing a ball that he deflected himself.


Tim.

[UmpJM]

Upon further reflection....

I would have to agree with Garth.

The criteria I suggested in my first post are applicable to a runner being hit by a fair batted ball, NOT a runner failing to avoid a protected fielder who is in the act of fielding.

JM

[Steven Tyler]

Originally Posted by BigUmp56

I agree wholeheartedly with both you and Garth, John. At least for the play as presented, I do. However, a fielder can have a legitimate chance to retire a runner and not be priveledged if he's chasing a ball that he deflected himself.


Tim.

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

[UmpJM]

Originally Posted by Steven Tyler

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

I would say that it is most likely that either fitump56 or canadaump6 is working the bases.

JM

[DG]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

I would say that it is most likely that either fitump56 or canadaump6 is working the bases.

JM

Funny of the week... and hard to beat. Both are on my ignore list and you had to quote Steven Tyler for me to see what he had to say (same reason).

[UMP25]

Originally Posted by Steven Tyler

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

Paging Mr. Eddings, Mr. Doug Eddings.

[tibear]

Originally Posted by BigUmp56

I agree wholeheartedly with both you and Garth, John. At least for the play as presented, I do. However, a fielder can have a legitimate chance to retire a runner and not be priveledged if he's chasing a ball that he deflected himself.


Tim.

I think this is where I was a bit confused. I thought that once the defence had touched a batted ball that all defensive players must avoid runners.

So only the defensive player that touched the batted ball has to avoid runners and all other defensive players are still protected to play the ball?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by tibear

I think this is where I was a bit confused. I thought that once the defence had touched a batted ball that all defensive players must avoid runners.

So only the defensive player that touched the batted ball has to avoid runners and all other defensive players are still protected to play the ball?

How dare you try to bring this back on topic!

There's a difference between "interfering with the ball" and "interfereing with the fielder." Once the ball is deflected, the runner is absolved from all but intentional contact with the ball. The fielder might still be protected, if he's fielding the ball and not chasing after a loose ball.

[tibear]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

How dare you try to bring this back on topic!

There's a difference between "interfering with the ball" and "interfereing with the fielder." Once the ball is deflected, the runner is absolved from all but intentional contact with the ball. The fielder might still be protected, if he's fielding the ball and not chasing after a loose ball.

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?

[BigUmp56]

Originally Posted by tibear

I think this is where I was a bit confused. I thought that once the defence had touched a batted ball that all defensive players must avoid runners.

So only the defensive player that touched the batted ball has to avoid runners and all other defensive players are still protected to play the ball?

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.

[tibear]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

tibear,

The criteria to be used in determining whether this is interference or obstruction is whether, in the umpire's judgement, the F4 had a legitimate chance to retire a runner absent the collision.

If he he judged that he did, it's interference. If he judged that he didn't, it's obstruction.

Whether the ball is in flight or not or whether F4 is moving or standing still is at best peripherally relevant.

The only way you get two outs on the play is if the umpire judges both that the F4 had a play and that the R1 intentionally ran into him to break up the double play - possible, but a bit of a stretch in my opinion.

JM

P.S. Why on earth would you judge intent (on the part of R1) based on the F4 standing still?

If F4 is standing still then obviously R1 had to see him before running into him, unless R1 is either running with his eyes closed or his head down. In all likelihood F4 isn't standing 3 feet beside R1 as R1 starts his run. The assumption in the intentional interference is that if F4 is stationally then R1 had at least 10 feet to see F4 and avoid running into him.

[GarthB]

If, as you wrote, F4 is making a play on the ball:

1. Interference
2. Interference
3. Interference