LLWS - Washington / Connecticut

[Manny A]

From the MLBUM: "If, after a player has fielded a batted ball but before he is able to throw the ball, a runner hinders or impedes such fielder, the runner shall be called out for interference."

Seems to me that's what happened here. F6 fielded the ball, but before he was able to throw it (which he undoubtedly would), R2 ran into him. If R2 had knocked F6 to the ground, allowing R3 to easily score, how would you not consider that as interference?

Train wrecks happen when a thrown ball causes a fielder to get into the runner's path, and the fielder, runner, and ball all arrive at the same place simultaneously. They also happen when the catcher and batter-runner make contact on a ball in front of the plate. They do NOT happen when a fielder has long had possession of the ball and he's running to make a play. The fielder is under no obligation to tag a runner approaching him, so just because that didn't happen doesn't excuse R2 for running into him.

[lawump]

Originally Posted by Manny A

From the MLBUM: "If, after a player has fielded a batted ball but before he is able to throw the ball, a runner hinders or impedes such fielder, the runner shall be called out for interference."

The purpose of this interpretation is to clarify that a protected fielder's act of fielding a batted ball does not end immediately when the ball enters his glove, but rather that it also includes (fielder is still protected during) the throw (and follow-through) after the batted ball enters his glove.

For example, ground ball to F4 who has to dive to glove the ball. In the process of getting to a vertical base (in order to throw to F3 in an attempt to retire the B/R), R1 collides with F4. This is interference. F4, in layman's terms, has "fielded (the) batted ball," in as much as the ball is now in his glove, but under the interpretation above he is still protected as R1 collided with him before he was able to throw the ball (as he was getting to a vertical base in order to throw to F3.)

This interpretation was NOT meant to protect a fielder in a play like the one on the video in this thread where the fielder has fielded the batted ball, had an opportunity to throw the ball (but elected not to), then decided to chase after a runner in an attempt, presumably, to tag that runner, and then collides with a runner while chasing after another runner.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by lawump

The purpose of this interpretation is to clarify that a protected fielder's act of fielding a batted ball does not end immediately when the ball enters his glove, but rather that it also includes (fielder is still protected during) the throw (and follow-through) after the batted ball enters his glove.

For example, ground ball to F4 who has to dive to glove the ball. In the process of getting to a vertical base (in order to throw to F3 in an attempt to retire the B/R), R1 collides with F4. This is interference. F4, in layman's terms, has "fielded (the) batted ball," in as much as the ball is now in his glove, but under the interpretation above he is still protected as R1 collided with him before he was able to throw the ball (as he was getting to a vertical base in order to throw to F3.)

This interpretation was NOT meant to protect a fielder in a play like the one on the video in this thread where the fielder has fielded the batted ball, had an opportunity to throw the ball (but elected not to), then decided to chase after a runner in an attempt, presumably, to tag that runner, and then collides with a runner while chasing after another runner.

I still find it hard to believe that a fielder loses his protection when he starts running towards a runner, and another runner runs into him. By your parsing of the interpretations, the fielder gains protection as he's fielding the batted ball, loses it after he fields it and starts running towards the runner, and regains it when he starts his motion to throw to the other fielder. I can't imagine the interpreters feeling that protection is to be turned on and off willy nilly like that during the progress of a play.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Manny A

I still find it hard to believe that a fielder loses his protection when he starts running towards a runner, and another runner runs into him. By your parsing of the interpretations, the fielder gains protection as he's fielding the batted ball, loses it after he fields it and starts running towards the runner, and regains it when he starts his motion to throw to the other fielder. I can't imagine the interpreters feeling that protection is to be turned on and off willy nilly like that during the progress of a play.

Trust your gut, Manny. It's not.

[Dave Reed]

Originally Posted by Manny A

By your parsing of the interpretations, the fielder gains protection as he's fielding the batted ball, loses it after he fields it and starts running towards the runner, and regains it when he starts his motion to throw to the other fielder.

No, once the fielder had the opportunity to throw and doesn't, the act of fielding a batted ball is over, and the fielder loses his protection.

Consider R1 and a batted ball fielded by F6 close to second base. F6 runs to tag 2nd, and R1 "takes him out" so that he can't complete a throw to first. We see this frequently in MLB, and there is no interference, as long as R1 can reach the base.

[lawump]

Originally Posted by Dave Reed

No, once the fielder had the opportunity to throw and doesn't, the act of fielding a batted ball is over, and the fielder loses his protection.

Exactly...and now the runner must do something intentional in order to interfere.

[bluehair]

Originally Posted by Dave Reed

Consider R1 and a batted ball fielded by F6 close to second base. F6 runs to tag 2nd, and R1 "takes him out" so that he can't complete a throw to first. We see this frequently in MLB, and there is no interference, as long as R1 can reach the base.

On the play you describe, baseball tradition gives the benefit of the doubt (intentional or not) to the runner. But that benefit of the doubt is not unlimited. If R1 is within reach of 2B when he wraps up F6 and prevents him from throwing, then he loses the benefit of the doubt.

I don't think your sitch is analogous to the OP. The J/R tag/crash/ball loose play is closer to being analogous, but I don't think it applies either. In that play the fielder is making a play on the runner, fielder was not impeded from making the play by the runner (unless he does something intentional).

I get it that the OP does not meet 7.09(j), (there is contact, but no fielding) but when your situation isn't covered by one rule, you have to look for others that do cover it...like 2.00 or 7.08(b). Maybe there are other MLBUM/casebook plays that are more analogous to the OP. I remain unconvinced.

[lawump]

Originally Posted by bluehair

On the play you describe, baseball tradition gives the benefit of the doubt (intentional or not) to the runner. But that benefit of the doubt is not unlimited. If R1 is within reach of 2B when he wraps up F6 and prevents him from throwing, then he loses the benefit of the doubt.

But by written interpretation (for example PBUC manual), sliding to take out the pivot man on a double-play (as long as you could touch the base with some part of your body during the slide) is NOT to be construed as an intentional act of interference. Hence, it has nothing to do with "tradition." Rather, it is explicitly set forth in various interpretations.

"Wrap(ing) up" the middle fielder IS an intentional act. The runner in your example is not called out for interference due to the fact that he interfered with a "protected fielder" who was "fielding a batted ball". Rather, he is called out for interference for committing an intentional act of interference.

THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH "BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT".

Your example clearly shows that a runner must commit an intentional act in order to be called out for interference against a fielder when the fielder is not a "protected fielder" in the act of "fielding a batted ball."