Cubs-Sox play

[DonInKansas]

Originally Posted by JJ

I was surprised there wasn't more of a squawk and even and ejection - but it IS Spring Training...

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

[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.