Cubs-Sox play

[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.