According to the NCAA, the correct answer is A. Since F2 had to leave his initial position to go after the ball, he lost his protection from committing OBS. The NCAA, as well as OBR, defines "in the act of fielding" if the ball is "near enough" and "directly toward" the fielder. Since F2 had to chase after the errant throw, the ball was not directly to F2, therefore he was not "in the act of fielding" and that result ends up being OBS.

In situations where F2 has to go up the line to receive a throw, you have to judge whether F2 is chasing after the throw or has reestablished a position in order to receive the throw. If F2 has gone up the line and has stopped or gained a position to where the throw is "directly toward" him, you can now consider him "in the act of fielding." If F2 is still chasing, as in the OP, he has not reestablished his position.

I answered D both times I took the test. If the catcher is in the act of fielding and moving with the purpose of making a legitimate play on the ball you cannot have obstruction. I don't see a difference on a thrown vs batted ball and we protect a fielder while moving to make a play on a batted ball, so how is this different?

I suggest you check this play out: Play 4 on page 8 of the NCAA supplement - With R2 on second, B1 singles to right. F9's throw is slightly wide of third base. F2 moves up the line a few feet. R2 collides with F2 just as the ball arrives. F2 is able to retrieve the ball and tag out R2.

Ruling: By moving up the line a few feet, F2 lost his protection and must have the ball in order to block R2. F2 is guilty of obstruction. Award R2 home.

That looks really similar to the exam question. The throw takes the player up the line a few feet and the ball hasn't arrived. Loss of protection and obstruction are justified according to the supplement.

These questions are more reading tests than rules knowledge. Good luck!

And sometimes the reading is mind reading. With respect to questions like this, it's much easier to get it right on the field than on the test.

The difference is who put the ball in a spot where the fielder had to move to get it?

Probably so, but according to the test answer key we still don't know that for sure.....because we won't have the correct answers until the 13th. ;)

JJ

If you you are saying is true, then why do we have this AR in the NCAA rule book?

A.R. 3—If a fielder has a chance to field a batted ball, but misplays it and while attempting to recover it, the ball is in the fielder’s immediate reach and the fielder is contacted by the base runner attempting to reach a base, interference shall be called.

By that logic, your argument stands on unstable ground. The fielder was there to make a legitimate play. Keep in mind why he was there and the fact that he is in the act of fielding.

If I can slightly hijack the OP - does this type of ruling change how we should judge the "classic" trainwreck at 1st? You know, where the throw from F5 pulls F3 up and into the basepath of the BR. I've always thought of them as just that - trainwrecks - and still consider F3 in the act of fielding the ball - but play 4 in the supplement looks like it could support the OBS call at 1st as well...