Pitcher obstruction?

[UmpJM]

jbarry,

I see no one has yet provided you with a rule reference. It's somewhat different in different codes.

From OBR :

Originally Posted by OBR Rule 2.0 Obstruction, Comment

...After a fielder has made an attempt to field a ball and missed, he can no longer be in the “act of fielding” the ball. ...

From Fed:

Originally Posted by FED 8-4-2g

...A fielder is not protected, except from intentional contact if he misplays the ball and has to move from his original location; ...

And NCAA:

Originally Posted by NCAA Rule 2, Interference, Approved Rulings

A.R. 4—If a fielder has a chance to field a batted ball, but misplays it and must chase after the ball, the fielder must avoid the runner. If contact occurs, obstruction shall be called.

A.R. 5—If a fielder chases after a deflected batted ball ahead of a runner’s arrival and is in the act of picking up the ball (fielding) when contact is made by an offensive player, interference is the call. If the fielder is chasing after the deflected batted ball and contact is made between the two players, obstruction should be the call.

JM

[jbarry06248]

Thanks for your replies and the youtube video. There is a lot of opinion out there. Thank you JM for the rules. At least its something to pin your hat on and make a decision.

I would have to say obstruction, based on the fact that the pitcher was chasing a deflected ball and looks like he did not have posession when the collision occured. Based on the above rules.

John

[waltjp]

FED

8.4.2 SITUATION U: F4 is in the baseline without the ball (a) on both knees or (b) bending over. R1 hurdles, jumps, leaps or dives over F4. RULING: In (a) and (b), obstruction is ignored. If the runner hurdles, jumps or dives over the fielder, he shall be declared out. These illegal acts supersede obstruction.

[UmpJM]

walt,

So, in jbarry's original sitch, where the fielder is in a "sitting slide", how would you apply this case play if the fielder did NOT have posession of the ball and the runner...

a. jumped over the fielder's legs?

b. had his legs cut out from under him by the sitting/sliding fielder and ended up going "*** over teakettle" over said fielder's head?

JM

[waltjp]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

walt,

So, in jbarry's original sitch, where the fielder is in a "sitting slide", how would you apply this case play if the fielder did NOT have posession of the ball and the runner...

a. jumped over the fielder's legs?

b. had his legs cut out from under him by the sitting/sliding fielder and ended up going "*** over teakettle" over said fielder's head?

JM

Speaking FED -

I'd have to see the situation you described in (a). If the pitcher was sliding and the runner stepped over an outstretched leg I'd probably have nothing. Now jumping/leaping/diving over the fielder's body is a different story.

In (b), if the fielder initiated contact by sliding into the runner I'd have obstruction.

HTBT

[UmpJM]

walt,

I'd definitely have obstruction in both.

JM

[waltjp]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

walt,

So, in jbarry's original sitch, where the fielder is in a "sitting slide", how would you apply this case play if the fielder did NOT have posession of the ball and the runner...

a. jumped over the fielder's legs?

b. had his legs cut out from under him by the sitting/sliding fielder and ended up going "*** over teakettle" over said fielder's head?

JM

Originally Posted by waltjp

Speaking FED -

I'd have to see the situation you described in (a). If the pitcher was sliding and the runner stepped over an outstretched leg I'd probably have nothing. Now jumping/leaping/diving over the fielder's body is a different story.

In (b), if the fielder initiated contact by sliding into the runner I'd have obstruction.

HTBT

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

walt,

I'd definitely have obstruction in both.

JM

I thought about this after I signed off last night and I agree with you in (a). Obstruction should be the call, not 'nothing'.