LLWS - Washington / Connecticut

[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."