Cubs-Sox play

[greymule]

I've had only one call like this in my career, and I blew it. Batter hit a sharp grounder off the pitcher, and the ball deflected a few feet across the 1B line into foul territory. The pitcher was chasing down the ball and, it appeared, would have time to pick it up and throw to 1B ahead of the runner. But a little more than halfway up the line, runner and pitcher collided. Each player was slowed, but nobody fell to the ground and I let play continue. The pitcher grabbed the ball and threw the runner out by a couple of steps.

It seemed to me that even though the ball had rebounded a considerable distance, and was probably somewhat beyond a step and a reach when the contact occurred, it was lying motionless and in the imminent possession of the fielder, who still had plenty of time for the out. Therefore, not OBS. And since the pitcher in fact got the out, I didn't even think of INT. But with the collision, it should have been one or the other. Very hard to say which, however, but probably OBS.

I didn't get much of an argument from the offensive coach, probably because before the contact, the play was developing into an out.

This play has one (probably irrelevant) difference from the OP, in that no one could say the pitcher flubbed the hard shot back at him. You wouldn't be rewarding the defense for making an error. It was actually a nice play.

[Steven Tyler]

Originally Posted by DonInKansas

Yeah? Tell that to the Yankees and Devil Rays....

You can drop the "Devil" from the Tampa name now. They are officially now only the the Tampa Bay Rays. I believe it has something to do with Sun Rays. Not sure how that equates since they play in a domed stadium.

[UMP25]

John,

Back in the days--has it really been 19 years ago?--when I went to umpire school, Mssrs. Jaksa and Roder were our rules instructors. As they explained then, when a ball is deflected by a fielder and contact between said fielder and a runner occurs...

...if the fielder deflects or bobbles the ball but in such a way that he maintains the ball on his person or right near him, we have interference on the runner. This was labeled "maintain deflects."

...if the fielder deflects the ball in such a way that he just has to take a step or two to retrieve it, we have no interference or obstruction (so-called incidental contact). This was labeled "step deflects."

...if the fielder deflects the ball in such a way that he has to run or chase after it to retrieve it, we have obstruction on the fielder. This was called "chase deflects."

Rather unusual terminology, but it helped us to better understand when interference or obstruction--or nothing--occurred.

[mbyron]

I agree the terminology is unusual, but I agree with the philosophy behind it. I'm intrigued by the idea of a fielder "step deflecting" a batted ball, so that contact would be incidental, neither INT nor OBS. The fielder's protection is ruled to be over -- so no INT -- but he hasn't moved enough from his location where he WAS protected to warrant the OBS call. Neat.

[greymule]

Hey, then I called that play correctly years ago. It was definitely "step deflects"—in between "maintain deflects" and "chase deflects." Makes sense, too.

I can sleep easier now.

[UMP25]

Glad it helped. I know it's helped me over the years. Personally, I believe it's one of the best analyses I've ever seen regarding a rule interpretation.

[BretMan]

From the Major League Baseball Umpire Manual (MLBUM):

Section 6.23, Case Play #4: With bases loaded, batter hits a sharp ground ball that deflects off of the shortstop and starts to roll away from him. As the shortstop starts to go after the ball, the runner from second collides with him.

Ruling: After the ball deflects off the shortstop, if the ball is within the fielder's IMMEDIATE REACH, the runner must avoid the fielder, and if contact occurs under those circumstances, interference shall be called and the runner declared out. (In this situation the fielder is still considered "in the act of fielding" the ball and has not "missed" as described in the Casebook Comments to Official Baseball Rule 2.00 (Obstruction).)

However, if the ball is not within reach of the fielder after it deflects off him (i.e., the fielder must CHASE AFTER THE BALL), the fielder must then avoid the runner, and if contact occurs under those circumstances, OBSTRUCTION shall be called under Official Baseball Rule 7.06(b).

In regard to the Jaksa/Roder guidelines: Perhaps they have changed their interpretation somewhere along the line of the past nineteen years. Their current manual does not contain the three definitions listed above. In fact, their latest materials reflect the same ruling offered from the MLBUM.

[UMP25]

The manual J/R published is not the same manual as the one used at umpire school. Back then, the J/R had yet to exist. However, they did use the terminology I mentioned above to more clearly explain the situation.

The MLBUM to which you refer above basically uses the same terminology, with the exception of "step deflects" and the resulting "it's nothing" situation; that is, the interference and obstruction scenarios are explained, but the "incidental contact" is not.

[bob jenkins]

On "another board", someone with MLB experience opines that if F4 is still chasing the ball, it's obstruction, but once F4 is again fielding the ball he "reacquires" protection (that, of course, is paraphrased).

That would seem to be consistent with NCAA 2-Interference AR5 (new in the rule book this year -- I think it was an interp issued last year in response to the play where F1 chased the ball and was then contacted (or was contacted by) the BR).

[UMP25]

Makes sense, Bob, and I think it aligns to the J/R point of view, at least based on how they taught it at school.