Interesting Play, want opinions
 

I was working a 4 man NCAA Fall Ball game the other evening, and we had an interesting play happen. Had a great discussion on the play with my partners after the game. It is partly a HTBT situation, but I hope I can explain it well enough for some comments.

R1,R2, 0 out.

Batter pops up a bunt down the 1B line, but not out of the dirt circle around home plate. Ball looks fair, but then I'm U2.

BR and F2 both hesitate for a moment, then they both start moving: F2 goes for the ball, BR starts down the line, and there is contact. F2 gets jostled but does not fall, BR goes up the line.

F2 then makes a complete mess of the play, doesn't turn to catch the ball, misses it, and/or allows it to touch him, and the ball rolls foul (which is a whole new thread).

After the half, U3 and I gather to talk about the play. He is an outstanding umpire. "What did you see?", he asks.

I told him: "I had a fair ball, no OBS by F2, and incidental contact."

He said: "I had INF on the BR because he hesitated in getting out of the box, and then there was contact. The BR was hesitating to try and draw contact on F2."

My reply: "I saw no intent by the BR to make contact, and it was still in the area around HP, but if you are PU and called INF, I would go down with you 100% on the call."

We talked it over after the game with the crew. We came to no consensus, and while I was not in agreement with U3, as a guy with more NCAA experience than I do, I am questioning my view of how to see the play.

The key point as I see it is intent of the BR. If he hesitates, is this clearly a sign to the fact that he is trying to disrupt F2 from making a play? Since F2 made a hash out of the play, that argument seems plausible.

But, my thinking was: It is close to HP; both F2 and BR hesitated, since neither seemed to know where the ball was. F2, even after contact, had every chance to play the ball cleanly, and to me missed the ball because he botched the play, not because of contact by BR. If I was the PU, I would have: 1. Made a safe signal, and said "that's nothing", on the contact. 2. Called the Catch/no catch, fair/foul.

So, IMO, if you have INF on the BR, you have to call it immediately, which might also be a problem in the PU is trying to locate the ball. My response to what I saw was no INF. Was it the correct response, or the second best choice on the play?

These kind of plays make BB such a great sport to call. It was worth being cold, to learn something about that play.

Thanks for your thoughts.

P.S. In a regular season game situation, the defensive team manager is of course coming out of the dugout immediately. I would explain what I had, and I know he would say "Talk to your partners." This being NCAA ball and their recent changes about how crews should work together to get the call right, I have two other questions:

1. Would you bring you partner(s) in? I wouldn't, but I am too old school on this stuff (maybe).
2. If you did, and your partner or partners say I/they had INF, would you eat your call? (No, but if I did, I can see at least one ejection happening).

This is a HTBT, but unless you think the BR (1) thought fast enough to wait in the box until F2 started after the ball, and then (2) deliberately got tangled with F2, it's incidental contact.

In the unlikely event that the BR foolishly stood in the box until F2 moved out to pick up the ball, and then, with F2 clearly in front of him, the BR crashed F2, even unintentionally, then it's INT. But if both players act according to instinct, even a little late, the contact doesn't generate a call.

(I don't do NCAA baseball, but I assume it's the same as OBR in this case.)

You're absolutely right on the rule here: contact between F2 and BR should be ruled incidental unless one of them does something intentional to hinder the other.

So the other piece is judgment: you were there, and you saw nothing intentional. That's good enough for me.

If U3 thinks that hesitation on this play is evidence of intent -- well, I disagree. For me, I'd be looking for a shove or a grab: something obvious to granny in the stands.

You say: "The key point as I see it is intent of the BR. If he hesitates, is this clearly a sign to the fact that he is trying to disrupt F2 from making a play? Since F2 made a hash out of the play, that argument seems plausible."

I disagree that this argument is plausible. What F2 does or fails to do is no evidence of the BR's intent. Only the BR's behavior is evidence; and for me, hesitation is not necessarily evidence of intent to hinder.

I guess I could imagine a play where hesitation was such evidence: BR would have to see the ball and deliberately get in F2's way, and all that would have to be obvious to me as PU. It doesn't sound like that's what you saw.

U3 sounds like he's pretty impressed with himself and his own powers of judgment, 120 feet away from this play. Not much you can do with that. :shrug:

Larry Barnett would agree with what was written above. Hesitation can also show intent NOT to interfere.

7.09j and comment and, according to Wiki, J/R 1997 have this play nailed down. As long as nothing intentional or deliberate by either side, play on.

<a href='http://img12.imageshack.us/i/fiskarmbrister.jpg/'><img src='http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/5363/fiskarmbrister.jpg' border='0' alt='Image Hosted by ImageShack.us'/></a><br/>

Mbyron, a note
 

You are wrong about U3. That's okay, I probably did not describe him very well. He is a very, very good umpire, and a class individual. I have worked with people who are over-inflated between the lines, he is not one of them.

Please only use genuine forum-approved emoticons. Thank you.;)

From what you have described, basically it comes down to this. This is the plate umpires call. Again from how you described the play, this is incidental contact.

According to your OP, both the BR & F2 stopped then started together. I do not have anything here.

To the question of going for help, there is no need for help on this. It is the PU's call all the way and if I saw one of my partners coming in, I would hold up the stop sign.