Cubs-Sox play

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by GarthB

I predict that the answer will be that the ball did not pass the fielder and did not "deflect" off the fielder...he was still in the act of fielding the batted ball and thus protected.

What do you call a ball that ricochets off of a fielder's glove and chest and bounces 10 feet away, if not a "deflection?"

[SAump]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

What do you call a ball that ricochets off of a fielder's glove and chest and bounces 10 feet away, if not a "deflection?"

Error

[JJ]

Originally Posted by SAump

Error

....followed by....OBSTRUCTION.

JJ

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

What do you call a ball that ricochets off of a fielder's glove and chest and bounces 10 feet away, if not a "deflection?"

I'm assuming for now that the answer will be that as long as it stayed in front of the fielder it will be ruled that he is still in the act of fielding the ball, as opposed to deflecting off his glove and going a distance to his side or behind him.

Please remember, that I prefaced my post above by stating that I am merely trying to predict what the interpretation will be when we hear about it from MLB. Don't shoot the messenger.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by GarthB

I'm assuming for now that the answer will be that as long as it stayed in front of the fielder it will be ruled that he is still in the act of fielding the ball, as opposed to deflecting off his glove and going a distance to his side or behind him.

Please remember, that I prefaced my post above by stating that I am merely trying to predict what the interpretation will be when we hear about it from MLB. Don't shoot the messenger.

This is what I said in post #3. Given that it's a spring training game, the discussion among MLB umps might well remain internal, especially if the umpiring supervisors decide that the call should have been OBS and not INT.

I've been thinking about how I would have ruled on the play if it happened in a HS game I was working. I think it's probably HTBT: I do like the "step and a reach" concept, (although I realize that it was not conceived for this kind of incident): if the fielding attempt doesn't cause the fielder to move much, I'm likely to rule INT. But if he has to come up 8 feet or more onto the grass to field the ball, even if right in front of him, I'd be leaning toward OBS.

[johnnyg08]

In a play like this...without seeing it...I have a hard time rewarding the defense with an INT call here for booting a ground ball...could it happen? sure. but the fielder better have controlled the ball within the near vicinity of his fielding space.

[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.