H.S. game, 2 outs, runner on 2nd. Ball is popped high on left side of IF, both F5 and F6 are calling for it. Runner is moving in the baseline to third. Just as F6 settles under the ball and catches the ball, outside of the baseline, F5 collides into F6 and the force of that collision causes F6 to collide with R1. The result of that collision is that F6 drops the ball.

I rule interference on R1 and inning is over. Third base coach starts *****ing that it wasn't his runner's fault -- that the fielder initiated the contact -- and, if anything it should be obstruction.

My response was that the intent of R1 is not a factor -- the runner must steer clear of a fielder (or fielders) in the act of making a play.

Comments?

Thanks.

SL-Geo

without seeing this play, kinda tough judgement call. But, if the fielders crashed, then fell into runner, I would probabaly lean towards obstruction, R1 and R3..2 outs. That would more than likely be the result of just the fielders crashing and dropping the ball. It was the faulty play of the D, why reward them for it??

From the way that you have explained it. I think I would have called nothing. Tough-luck. Defensive error. Play on.

If the original collision caused the runner to be knocked down then I think the coach was probably correct - obstruction, given that the runner was avoiding contact by running far enough away from the fielders.

Obviously the defense was having some communication problems.

It was probably a Had To Be There, HTBT, play.

Just my opinion. :)

I was feeling pretty conflicted about it, the more I replayed it in my mind. After the game I took a look at FED 8-4-2g "...he hinders a fielder on his initial attempt to field a batted ball." However, it goes on, "The fielder is not protected, except from intentional contact if he misplays the ball and has to move from his original location". One interpretation could be that F6 misplayed the ball but, based on what I saw, it was his ball all the way -- F5 misplayed the ball. In my mind, I was 'protecting' F6. In the Note to 8-4-2g, it says "if two fielders try to field a batted ball and the runner contacts one or both, the umpire shall decide which one is entitled to the ball and that fielder only is entitled to protection."

After reading this a few times, I satisfied myself that I made a defensible call given the complexity of it and the speed in which it happened.

I can see why "Third base coach starts *****ing", me thinkith it was Obstruction too.
By your own statement "F5 collides into F6 and the force of that collision causes F6 to collide with R1", intent aside - "R1 WAS NOT the cause" of the contact....

<i> Originally posted by gmtomko </i>

<b> H.S. game, 2 outs, runner on 2nd. Ball is popped high on left side of IF, both F5 and F6 are calling for it. Runner is moving in the baseline to third. Just as F6 settles under the ball and catches the ball, outside of the baseline, F5 collides into F6 and the force of that collision causes F6 to collide with R1. The result of that collision is that F6 drops the ball.

I rule interference on R1 and inning is over. Third base coach starts *****ing that it wasn't his runner's fault -- that the fielder initiated the contact -- and, if anything it should be obstruction.

My response was that the intent of R1 is not a factor -- the runner must steer clear of a fielder (or fielders) in the act of making a play.

Comments? </b>

For some strange reason out of all the MAJOR sports, most people think that when there is CONTACT in baseball "Something" has to be called. Baseball is not CONTACT free.

My first question is Did you discuss this play with your partner after the game? Did he /she agree with your call?

On a batted ball, you are correct that INTENT is not a requirement, however, protection doesn't last forever either.

You had a man on second 2 outs so you are probably in position "C". When the ball is popped up you use your best judgement and decide which fielder gets protection.

When the fielder boots the ball UNLESS the ball is in his /her immediate reach or the runner does something deliberate, Protection ends and play on.


In your case the players OWN TEAMMATE is the one who caused F6 to misplay the ball not the action of the runner. If this was a Varsity game, your assignor might be phoning you shortly.

Pete Booth

As you describe the play, I'd not rule interference.
However, in support of your call there could have been other factors to consider.

Evans states in several areas of the JEA:
<ul>The runner has not only a legal right but a legal obligation to go out of a direct line to avoid the fielder.

A batter has an inherent obligation to avoid the catcher fielding the ball <b>just as a runner must avoid an infielder in the act of fielding.</b> [my emphasis]</ul>
If the ball had been misplayed by the fielder <u>but within his reach</u>, the fielder would still have been protected and the runner is still obligated to avoid contacting him during his further effort at fielding the batted ball.

In your example, if the fielder after contacting his teammate was altered ever so slightly that he was still "within a reach" of his original location, then I'd likely rule interference. The runner should have been avoiding such proximity to a fielder catching a batted ball no differently than if the ball had dropped from the glove to an area 3ft. in front of the fielder. If the contact of F5 and F6 caused the protected fielder to move beyond that distance of a "reach of the fielder", then I'd likely not call interference and consider the contact between fielders as the cause of the trainwreck.

I've often seen in such instances with 2 outs runners slow down and alter their path slightly in an attempt to hinder the fielder <u>by running as close to him as possible</u>. When the 3rd out appears imminent, runners often feel they have little to lose and everything to gain if they can intimidate the fielder and cause him to drop the ball. I doubt if I'm the only umpire to have witnessed that type action.

The intent of the rule is that the fielder should not have to worry about getting runover by an advancing runner when he is fielding a batted ball. The runner is obligated to avoid the possibility of interfering by steering clear of the area necessary to field that batted ball---whether that batted ball is caught cleanly or deflected within the fielder's reach.


Just my opinion,

Freix

You don't really expect us to buy this do you?

Re : "In your example, if the fielder after contacting his teammate was altered ever so slightly that he was still "within a reach" of his original location, then I'd
likely rule interference. The runner should have been avoiding such proximity to a fielder catching a batted ball no differently than if the ball had dropped from the
glove to an area 3ft. in front of the fielder."

* The situation was this:

"Just as F6 settles under the ball and catches the ball, outside of the baseline, F5
collides into F6 and the force of that collision causes F6 to collide with R1."

So, let's see what we have. Oh ya, we have F5 and F6 both trying to catch a high pop fly on left side of IF just outside the base line in the area of 3rd base.
Then, just as F6 settles under the ball and catches the ball, outside of the baseline, F5 collides into F6; and, the force of that collision causes F6 to collide with R1.
First off, what the hell is F6 doing stealling what should be an routine catch for F5?
It appears that F5 may have been making the play, and F6 was not paying attention to who really had the catch and got in the way.
So, should protect both infielders be protected until they decide who is taking the catch? I think not.
Now, we still have a hustling R1 trying to get to 3rd base while running inside the baselines, when he is plowed into by F6 who was pushed back inside the baseline by F5 and into the oncoming R1.
Hmmm, R1 you're "out", you say - I'll take a pass on this one, exit stage left.....

[Edited by Rog on Apr 19th, 2003 at 10:48 AM]

Good comments, all, and much appreciated. There is always an opportunity to learn or, at least, after the fact when emotions are not a factor, review outside of the heat of the moment.

It is also very difficult to accurately state in words the exact stream of events in the nanosecond or two that it took to happen.

All rule books aside, I reacted to the high traffic situation that was almost simultaneous and ultimately was driven to decide that R1 was much too close to the fielding action.

I keep a diary of most of my games and since I just joined this board, I have been pulling out some of these memorable moments to get comments. I am also quite interested in what I see others are experiencing in their posts.

Luckily, it was a JV game and the coach didn't push it for long.

Thanks again to all who have contributed their thoughts to this post.

SL-Geo

Definitely obstruction. Look at 8-4-g note. Also, one thing that I have learned on this website is that you never should reward stupidity. In other words, penalized the team that messed up.

The contact was while F6 still had the ball -- how does a fielder with the ball commit obstruction (other than some strange tripping / grabbing play)?

How does a fielder with the ball commit obstruction?? I agree kinda hard. But you know what I have in this situation? A big fat nothing if the runner reaches third safely seeing as how F6 dropped the ball. Runner did not keep the fielder from making the play. His own teammate did. If by chance the runner was knocked down and tagged out as a result, due to the screw up by F5 in running into his guy I would call the obstruction since the runner was kept from getting to the base he is trying to get to because of the actions of a player not making a play on him.