Attempting to play the ball

[gslefeb]

I'm trying to understand the "attempting to play" a ball be an infielder concept.

I had an umpire explain it to me this way:

1. R2, ball hit to short stop, the ball, SS and R2 arrive at the same time, therefore SS was in the act of playing the ball, interference on R2.

2. R2, ball hit to short stop - but SS has to charge the ball; as he is charging the ball R2 runs into him. The ump said no interference as SS was not in the act of fielding.

3. R2, ball hit to short stop - SS gets in R2's path and waits for the ball, R2 collides with SS (ball is still some 20 feet away); The ump said no interference as SS was in the act of fielding.

I disagree with 2 and 3; Does he have the rulings correct?

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by gslefeb

I'm trying to understand the "attempting to play" a ball be an infielder concept.

I had an umpire explain it to me this way:

1. R2, ball hit to short stop, the ball, SS and R2 arrive at the same time, therefore SS was in the act of playing the ball, interference on R2.

2. R2, ball hit to short stop - but SS has to charge the ball; as he is charging the ball R2 runs into him. The ump said no interference as SS was not in the act of fielding.

3. R2, ball hit to short stop - SS gets in R2's path and waits for the ball, R2 collides with SS (ball is still some 20 feet away); The ump said no interference as SS was in the act of fielding.

I disagree with 2 and 3; Does he have the rulings correct?

The umpire was wrong on 2 and 3. (I assume you left out a "not" in #3)

[mbyron]

The fielder is protected doing everything normal to field a batted ball, including charging it and waiting on it. The fielder fielding a batted ball has the "right of way," and the runner must avoid contacting him (not just try to avoid contact). Even accidental contact is interference. The protection ends when the fielder has finished fielding (could be a catch, a tag attempt, or a throw, and perhaps other things).

The only way I could see interference NOT being called in this type of case would be one where the fielder intentionally throws himself at the runner to draw the interference call. I've never seen it or heard of it happen, but I'm sure that someone around here has!

[MajorDave]

Originally Posted by mbyron

...... The only way I could see interference NOT being called in this type of case would be one where the fielder intentionally throws himself at the runner to draw the interference call. I've never seen it or heard of it happen, but I'm sure that someone around here has!

I have been noticing this a lot lately. Usually with batter/catcher interference on throws to second or third base by the catcher. Some batters swing their butts around on a completed swing. Usually the catcher has released the ball and then takes a step and leans forward in an attempt to create contact in case the throw does not retire the runner.

I have also had a runner approaching home on a timing play where the runner (R1) got himself in a rundown. The tag was made on the R1 between first and second and F2 was well in front of home plate calling for the ball as R3 approached home. R3 stepped into fair territory and bumped shoulders with F2 in front of the plate then stomped the plate. I had the third out on R1 before the plate touch and almost simultaneously with the bump. Offensive coach went ballistic asking for "interference" on F2. I have no doubt in mind whatsoever that he called for this play and taught it to his players. It ended the game. I walked away as he was fuming and dumped the balls in front of home dugout and kept going as he stomped and cursed and waived his hands, etc. My partner,a much more senior umpire than me, and I had a good laugh. He had never seen that play attempt by the offense before. Funny thing is that if R3 had just slid or ran straight through the plate he would have probably been safe with the tying run.

As far as runners and fielders creating it on the basepaths I have not yet seen it but as you stated, someone else probably has. I did post an NCAA Interference situation on my blog at umpire-empire a couple of weeks back that was remarkable. Without re-typing that whole story it came down to opportunity of the runner to avoid the contact. He had what I believed to be an opportunity to avoid the fielder and I called interference although somewhat belatedly due to what I believed to be a severe injury to F4 as a result of being run over with a thigh and knee to the head and neck by R1. F4 had to leave the game due to the injury. He kept saying "I see colors and stars....." Kind of funny in retrospect but pretty scary when it happened.

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by gslefeb

I'm trying to understand the "attempting to play" a ball be an infielder concept.

I had an umpire explain it to me this way:

1. R2, ball hit to short stop, the ball, SS and R2 arrive at the same time, therefore SS was in the act of playing the ball, interference on R2.

2. R2, ball hit to short stop - but SS has to charge the ball; as he is charging the ball R2 runs into him. The ump said no interference as SS was not in the act of fielding.

3. R2, ball hit to short stop - SS gets in R2's path and waits for the ball, R2 collides with SS (ball is still some 20 feet away); The ump said no interference as SS was in the act of fielding.

I disagree with 2 and 3; Does he have the rulings correct?

All 3 are interference.

The fielder is protected while fielding a batted ball, while pursuing a batted ball in an attempt to field it, and even while fielding his own misplay of a batted ball, as long as it is within a "step and a reach." He is also protected while throwing the ball after fielding it.

Interference can also occur without any contact. Example: R2, ground ball to short. R2 hesitates and times his advance so that he comes between the fielder and the ball at the last moment. That's cheating. Penalize it.

[bossman72]

The only time he would not be protected is if he booted the grounder and has to subsequently chase the ball more than a step and a reach from his original location and contact occurs.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by bossman72

The only time he would not be protected is if he booted the grounder and has to subsequently chase the ball more than a step and a reach from his original location and contact occurs.

Or if the umpire judged another fielder to be more likely to make the play.

[PeteBooth]

A fielder is protected from fielding a batted ball the MOMENT we judge said fielder in the "act of fielding" The protection remains in tact until the follow through of the ball from the fielder. HOWEVER, once the fielder gets rid of the ball then he better vacate or he THEN could be guilty of OBS.

As another poster mentioned the fielder's prtection also remains in tact if he initially mis-plays the ball but the ball is within a "step and reach" of said fielder.

The aforementioned is true for all codes

Pete Booth