Test Time

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by MikeStrybel

This is one of those plays that we discussed in numerous emails and phone calls. Some insisted that this is a step and reach protection play. They contended that the pitcher lost his protection when he had to run after the ball that he deflected. Most of the others agreed that the pitcher was protected for two reasons - first, he is making the play on a ball that hit him (he did not make an initial play on it) and secondly, the runner would have to be inside the field of play to collide with him. The argument that B was appropriate seemed logical since Fed tends to penalize the offending team in the worst possible way. I could have sworn there was a similar play in the pros last year. If anyone knows of this, please post a link.

What do you have on this one, Bob?

The "inside the field of play" doesn't matter (I don't think) -- and it's not specified exactly where the collision took place.

The part that's unclear to me is whether F1 initially "tried to field" the ball.

In FED, a runner is out if he "hinders a fielder on his INITIAL (emphasis added) attempt to field a batted ball. A fielder is not protected ... if he misplays the ball and has to move from his original location" (8-4-2g)

In NCAA, "If a fielder chases after a deflected batted ball ahead of a runner's arrival and is in the act of picking up the ball (fielding) when contact is made by an offensive player, interference is the call." 2-Interference, AR5

In OBR, if ANOTHER (emphasis added) fielder has an opportunity to make a play, then it's interference. (Sorry, no books handy for an exact quote / reference). Some school(s) apparently teach that the protection also applies to the SAME fielder as long as he's back to fielding the ball and not just chasing after it.

[MikeStrybel]

I see your point about fielding the ball and then leaving that position to retrieve it. From the way it's written, I read it to be that it was a smash back that carromed (sp?) off the pitcher's foot towards the first base line. I then read it to be that the pitcher was reaching for the ball to make a play, but you're right it isn't clear. I can see where an umpire might assume that the pitcher was rushing to get a ball that he deflected foul and stepped into the running lane.

It wasn't my favorite question.

[mbyron]

Getting hit by a batted ball is not an attempt to field it, and thus a deflection is not a misplayed ball. Protection continues for the fielder fielding a batted ball. JMHO.

[MikeStrybel]

Agreed. I noted that in post #21. I have requested a rule interp on this one from the IHSA but may have to wait since it is a current test question.

[bob jenkins]

From an esteemed member on another forum:

This play has been on my mind for two weeks. As I indicated in my prior post in this thread, we have been debating the video posted in this thread in my high school association before this thread even started.

I don't normally do this, but this time I made an exception, and called one of my contacts from my professional umpiring days. [I am not going to name drop...so don't ask.] I can CONCLUSIVELY state that both an PBUC and a MLB umpiring executive believe "obstruction" is the correct call in the play shown on the video posted on this thread under OBR.

It was explained to me that a fielder who deflects a batted ball and then chases after it is not protected while he is chasing after it. (We all know that!) They further stated that the fielder who chased after it CAN regain protection if he reaches a point where he is no longer chasing after the batted ball and is again in the act of fielding the ball. However, the key on the professional level is whether or not the RUNNER has sufficient time to see that the fielder is no longer chasing after the ball, and is, in fact, in the act of fielding the ball and thus is given a reasonable opportunity to adjust where he is running in order to avoid the contact. What is not important is whether or not the fielder has the ball in his possession. In fact, the fielder does not have to actually have possession of the ball to be protected: all that matters is that he has stopped chasing the ball (it is within a step) AND the runner has an opportunity to see that the fielder is no longer chasing after the ball (and is now fielding the ball) and thus is given an opportunity to avoid the fielder.

Both executives were in agreement that the runner in the play shown on the video posted in this thread had no opportunity to avoid the contact which resulted from the pitcher running and stopping in the B/R's path (regardless of whether or not the fielder had picked up the ball or stopped running after the ball at the time of the collision). Because the runner had no reasonable opportunity to avoid the contact, the onus was on the fielder (who deflected the ball and chased after the ball into the runner's path) to avoid impeding the runner. Thus, obstruction is the correct call.

They were clear in stating that each play would have to be evaluated on its own merits. They stated that there is NO blanket rule as to how long a fielder must have been stopped from chasing a ball (and in the act of fielding it again) in order to conclusively determine if the runner was given a reasonable opportunity to avoid the contact.

You can, if you desire, argue all you want. I did NOT get this information second hand; it was told to me directly. Obstruction is the definitive ruling in both MLB and MiLB on the play shown on the video in this thread. Thus, my statement as to what I thought was the right call on the play in this video that I wrote in my first post in this thread is/was wrong. Mea Culpa.

[MikeStrybel]

Obstruction would be the correct call at the Fed level too.