Error & Interference??
 

Interesting situation last night....

R2, batter hits the ball between F5 & F6. F5 runs to make a play on the ball and misses the ball, F6 was also running towards the ball but gets hit by R2 on his way to fielding the ball.

Does F5's error overrule the interference on F6?

Not nearly enough information.

A) Which rule set (yes, it could matter)
B) Did the ball pass "immediately by F6"?
C) Did F5 have a play on the ball?

You might have INT. You might have OBS. Depends on the answers to the questions.

a) We're in Canada so we only use OBR.
b) Ball went right through F5 however, he didn't touch it.
c) F6 did have a play on the ball but was on the ground when the ball went by him. F5 had a good chance of making an out at first if there wasn't a collision with the runner.

There is obviously either obstruction or interference.....the question is which?

Was F6 the "protected fielder" at the time of the contact? If so, it's int. If not, it's OBS.

In this instance, as I read the play, F5 was initially the protected fielder. If the contact occurred before the ball went through F5, then it was OBS.

Once the ball went through F5, F6 *could have become* the protected fielder *IF* you judged that he had a play -- that is, could have fielded the ball and then had a reasonable attempt at a put-out (if the latter isn't true, then he was jsut "chasing a loose ball.")

I called interference, didn't get any discussion but wondered if F5's error should have overridden the interference call.

I'm assuming that if F5 had actually touched the ball that it would then be obstruction called on F6 or would it have been a judgement call on my part as to whether F5 truly had committed an error or whether he had a realistic chance of making a play on the hit ball. i.e. a hard line drive that F5 quickly reacts to, touches it but doesn't make the catch and deflects it on the ground towards F6. Again F6 should probably be protected.

Luckily we umpires never have to decide whether a fielder made an error or not. None of that should be part of your thought process. Who is protected. Period. If an unprotected fielder contacts your runner, it's OBS. The "error" and whether it overrides anything is immaterial.

Bob, How typical is it to change the protected fielder? It seems like a huge disadvantage to the runner. The runner is trying to avoid the fielder he sees trying to make a play (F5 in this case). In doing that he now has to account for other fielders in the vicinity? Seems unreasonable.:confused:

First, the error doesn't override any interference call.

Second, your asusmption is wrong. the runner is protected from (unintentional) interference with a deflected BALL, but not from interference with a FIELDER fielding a deflected ball.

OK, now I'm a confused.

I've always been told that a defender has the priority when playing a ball coming directly off a bat, however, if a defensive player had a clear chance to make a play on the ball and bobbles the ball, the defense is no longer playing a batted ball but a loose ball and must now ensure they do not obstruct a runner from advancing.

Now you seem to imply that a missed opportunity by the defense to make a play on a batted ball has no bearing on whether a subsequent play on the same ball can be ruled interference.

Which "you" were you responding to? :)

You have to decide which fielder is protected. Period. Unless you're dealing with a runner struck by a ball, none of the other stuff mentioned matters. If you had F5 protected, and F5 deflects the ball to F6, F6 is not suddenly protected --- but the runner STILL must avoid the ball (assuming F6 has a play).

Mike,

No, if the ball is deflected by F5, then the runner is absolved of liability for being unintentionally hit by the (deflected) ball.

If F6 DOES have a legitimate opportunity to make a play on the deflected ball (in the umpire's judgment) then he IS protected and the runner must avoid him.

JM

So when does a "batted ball" become a "loose ball"? Is it when you determine the defense no longer has a legitimate chance at a play?

If the defender bobbles the ball and must move, *he* is generally not protected. *Another* fielder might be, however.

So given the following scenario, a ball is hit to F5 who bobbles the ball towards F6. Both F5 and F6 are moving to the ball to make a play and both have legitimate chances to make a play.......F6 would be protected but not F5?

Would "generally" mean that if he still had a chance to make a play then F5 would be protected?

Does it really come down to the fact then that a defensive player, who the umpire deems has a chance to make a play, is protected from interference by an offensive player? Regardless of what took place before the interference?

No. Who's on first.