8.3.2.k

[MikeStrybel]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

On a wild throw toward right field, F3 contacts the batter-runner while trying to catch the ball AFTER BR has touched first - and then does not catch the ball, do you have OBS when BR tries to go to 2nd base?

Wild? To me that assumes that there is no real play on the runner and the fielder is merely trying to get to the ball. That's definetly HTBT.

In the OP, the fielder was attempting to field the ball to make a play on the runner. I assume that means that he had to abandon his stretch and lunge after the ball, wide towards right. His effort caused a collision and Fed says it is incidental and legal.

Here is what J/R says about it: A fielder's "try to field" a thrown ball is a similar concept to a "try to field" a batted ball excepting that a "try to field" a thrown ball includes the actual possession of the thrown ball, and the fielder's actions immediately after a miss or deflection of the ball. Therefore, a protected fielder on a thrown ball need not "disappear" after deflecting or missing a thrown ball, and if fielder-runner contact is instantaneous, there is no obstruction. (page 120).

That would seem to indicate that if the collison (you used 'contact') occurs instantaneously he is protected. I envision the 'banger' and not the looping throw that takes the fielder several steps down the right field line on such a play. Though it is HTBT, I would penalize OBS if the fielder who misses the throw and then through his next actions - steps to retrieve it - causes the runner to not be able to advance or to be thrown out while trying.

I hope that helps clarify things. Are you working games now or is it still too early for ball down there?

[UmpTTS43]

Originally Posted by MikeStrybel

Here is what J/R says about it: A fielder's "try to field" a thrown ball is a similar concept to a "try to field" a batted ball excepting that a "try to field" a thrown ball includes the actual possession of the thrown ball, and the fielder's actions immediately after a miss or deflection of the ball. Therefore, a protected fielder on a thrown ball need not "disappear" after deflecting or missing a thrown ball, and if fielder-runner contact is instantaneous, there is no obstruction. (page 120).

Another example of why J/R is no longer an accepted "authority".

[MikeStrybel]

I received an email from a fellow member who warned me that you are an Evans devotee, on record (other sites, I guess) as not being a fan of J/R. I will not argue the many merits of J/R with you. I see it quoted regularly by many umpires I respect and embraced by some important governing bodies. You are entitled to your opinion.

[gpdeppert]

Quick question (perhaps O/T), but why the dis-respect of the J/R all of a sudden? I noticed that Carl Childress does not use it anymore in the BRD. It seemed to me to be a widely respected document.

Also, if the fielder's throw pulls the 1B toward home and he collides with the B/R while attempting to field that throw, I am inclined to call nothing. I base that upon the belief that the fielder was doing what he was supposed to be doing and will also make a judgment on "intent". It is like the Armbrister/Fisk incident in '75. If the batter immediately breaks out of the box and the catcher bounces out, both were doing what they were supposed to do and the contact is incidental.

[mbyron]

J/R has not kept pace with the updated interps coming out of the schools and MLBUM. That limits its usefulness.

In FED, a fielder without the ball may not deny a runner access to a base. It doesn't matter what he was "supposed" to be doing.

[MikeStrybel]

Originally Posted by mbyron

J/R has not kept pace with the updated interps coming out of the schools and MLBUM. That limits its usefulness.

In FED, a fielder without the ball may not deny a runner access to a base. It doesn't matter what he was "supposed" to be doing.

Mike, in the play we discussed, the player did not deny a runner access to a base. His collision with the runner who has just touched first base is deemed immaterial and legal. That is their interp after all, not J/R's.

The J/R does a great job providing interpretations for OBR, NCAA and Fed baseball. My book is a year old and has kept pace just fine. School philosophies change (The new PBUC school is making them to long held JEAPU conceptions!) and some students of such find acceptance of other ways to be troubling. You teach that subject and know how variants arise and evolutions take place. I haven't seen another interp disagree with J/R on this play but if one exists I will happily consider it. Who knows, maybe Hopkins and the NFHS will as well. I hope your season begins soon and goes well.

[john5396]

I had the OP (b) in a scrimmage Saturday. No runners, Throw to F3 was wide toward right field, F3 fell down attempting to field the ball. BR tripped over F3 and went down as well. F2 was covering the overthrow and came up with the ball quickly.

I ruled that since F2 covered the overthrow, BR had no opportunity to go to 2nd, F3 did no deny BR a chance to advance, so no call on the possible interference.

[CT1]

Originally Posted by gpdeppert

Also, if the fielder's throw pulls the 1B toward home and he collides with the B/R while attempting to field that throw, I am inclined to call nothing. I base that upon the belief that the fielder was doing what he was supposed to be doing and will also make a judgment on "intent". It is like the Armbrister/Fisk incident in '75. If the batter immediately breaks out of the box and the catcher bounces out, both were doing what they were supposed to do and the contact is incidental.

There is a HUGE difference between fielding a batted ball (as in the Armbrister/Fisk play) and trying to catch a thrown ball.

[SAump]

From YouTube collision at 1st

YouTube collision at firtst - Yahoo! Search Results

See video 1 for collision before 1st base and video 4 (warning: softball) for collision after 1st base is touched.

[dash_riprock]

I love the running lane comments. Completely clueless.