Pitcher runner contact?

[frozenrope22]

Happened this weekend. 14U NFHS rules. No runners and no outs. Batter hits a high pop up between home and first base. Runner is running right down the chalk. Pitcher comes over to catch the ball. Pitcher is looking up and runner is focused on getting down the line. There is incidental contact between pitcher and runner on the foul line. The contact knocks the pitchers glove off. Now the pitcher attempts to catch the ball without his glove but misses. Runner reaches first and the ball falls about 6 inches foul. Ball doesn't touch anyone and clearly lands foul but only by a few inches.
Umpires confer and call the ball foul and return the runner back to hit. The contact was truly incidental and didn't appear intentional on either player but I felt the pitcher would have easily caught the ball if he had his glove on.
I thought the runner had to avoid the first fielder making a play. While the ball was in the air there was no way of knowing it was going to land foul.
Was this the right call?

[dash_riprock]

No. Intent is irrelevant. The batter/runner should have been called out for interference.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by frozenrope22

Happened this weekend. 14U NFHS rules. No runners and no outs. Batter hits a high pop up between home and first base. Runner is running right down the chalk. Pitcher comes over to catch the ball. Pitcher is looking up and runner is focused on getting down the line. There is incidental contact between pitcher and runner on the foul line. The contact knocks the pitchers glove off. Now the pitcher attempts to catch the ball without his glove but misses. Runner reaches first and the ball falls about 6 inches foul. Ball doesn't touch anyone and clearly lands foul but only by a few inches.
Umpires confer and call the ball foul and return the runner back to hit. The contact was truly incidental and didn't appear intentional on either player but I felt the pitcher would have easily caught the ball if he had his glove on.
I thought the runner had to avoid the first fielder making a play. While the ball was in the air there was no way of knowing it was going to land foul.
Was this the right call?

No brainer -- interference.

[yawetag]

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

no. Intent is irrelevant. The batter/runner should have been called out for interference.

Originally Posted by richmsn

no brainer -- interference.

qft.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by frozenrope22

Happened this weekend. 14U NFHS rules. No runners and no outs. Batter hits a high pop up between home and first base. Runner is running right down the chalk. Pitcher comes over to catch the ball. Pitcher is looking up and runner is focused on getting down the line. There is incidental contact between pitcher and runner on the foul line. The contact knocks the pitchers glove off. Now the pitcher attempts to catch the ball without his glove but misses. Runner reaches first and the ball falls about 6 inches foul. Ball doesn't touch anyone and clearly lands foul but only by a few inches.
Umpires confer and call the ball foul and return the runner back to hit. The contact was truly incidental and didn't appear intentional on either player but I felt the pitcher would have easily caught the ball if he had his glove on.
I thought the runner had to avoid the first fielder making a play. While the ball was in the air there was no way of knowing it was going to land foul.
Was this the right call?

Where the ball landed is irrelevant (and always is, short of the base)... and intent is irrelevant. You have an out.

[mbyron]

The fielder fielding a batted ball has absolute right of way. Any contact with a runner, including the batter-runner, will be interference. As others have said, intent is irrelevant to that call.

Same in all codes.

[PeteBooth]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by frozenrope22

Happened this weekend. 14U NFHS rules. No runners and no outs. Pitcher comes over to catch the ball. Pitcher is looking up and runner is focused on getting down the line. There is incidental contact between pitcher and runner on the foul line. The contact knocks the pitchers glove off.

As others mentioned no brainer Interference BUT

How can the contact which caused F1's glove to come off be considered incidental?

The contact might have been accidental (which is irrelevant in this OP as intent is NOT a requirement) but NOT incidental.

A player fielding a batted ball is protect the moment we judge said fielder "in the act of fielding" and the protection lasts until the follow threw of the ball.

Pete Booth

[frozenrope22]

Poor choice of words on my part. It was accidental rather than incidental.

[greymule]

The play occurred in the Western world, so it was occidental, too.