Cubs-Sox play
 

Anyone see the play in the Sox-Cubs game today where the ground ball was hit to the second baseman who booted it, then he stepped forward to pick it up and the runner from first leveled him? The two base umpires huddled a bit and ruled interference. I hope MLB or YouTubers post this one somewhere, because it was a classic example.

JJ

PS ...but was it really interference? The fielder did boot it and then got in the runner's way going after it....hmmmm.....

I only saw the replay of it the next inning -- I would have had obstruction since F4 needed to chase after the ball he bobbled.

The only rationale I can see for INT here is to claim that the fielder is still in the act of fielding a batted ball, rather than recovering a misplayed ball, and thus still protected.

So I suspect that the crew ruled INT because the fielder kept the ball in front of him. Had a misplayed ball gotten behind F4 (playing in?) and taken him into the runner's path, likely that would be ruled OBS.

Either that or they booted the call. :D

I'm looking through my notes from Evans...somewhere I think I have that the fielder remains protected if he is still attempting to field the bobbled or deflected ball and it is within a step and a reach...or something like that.

I agree with that general description, but hat isn't how I saw the play -- I seem to recall that it was more of two or three steps and a reach.

I saw it live and on replay...in my opinion it was a place for a no-call. U2 had a no-call until the defense squawked. They had him ask for help from U1, who emphatically called interference. I think it was a bad call. It looked to me like the runner was trying to go around the fielder as he made his original play on the batted ball. After F4 booted the hell out of it and knocked it into the grass part of the infield, where R1 had already ran to avoid him, he took at least a couple of big steps in chasing after the ball. It was not even close to being "a step and a reach."

I would have said that I had nothing and gave an emphatic safe signal. It may have even been obstruction, but I would not have called it. Train wreck all the way.

The more I thought about it the more I thought it should be obstruction. F4 booted it and though he did keep it in front of him, he had to go from the dirt to the grass to go after it. It looked like the runner was trying to avoid a collision - which did happen in the grass.
I couldn't look at this "wreck" and have a no-call. I was surprised there wasn't more of a squawk and even and ejection - but it IS Spring Training...

I do wish someone had it on film. Great item for discussion!

JJ

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?"

E-4
 

:D Error

....followed by....OBSTRUCTION. :D

JJ

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.