Your call??

[Matt]

Originally Posted by jicecone

Your right Matt because, that part of the rule does only pertain to a fielder in possession of the ball, which was not the case here.

However, Par 3 can be applicable.

The Title of the Rule is "Collision Rule"

I believe it covers both situations though.

JMO

None of it can be applied (as of now,) and here's why--

The rule was written with the very specific intent of protecting fielders with the ball. The verbage hasn't changed since the adjustments to other related rules. So, the question is if the rule should still be enforced with its original intent, or not? Unless Jim Paranto comes out and says that the clause should have been rewritten, it still refers only to fielders with possession.

[dash_riprock]

It should, but it doesn't. When NCAA changed the obstruction rule in 2011, they neglected to change the Collision Rule as well. The two rules need to be consistent. The Collision Rule should apply whenever the fielder is permitted to completely block the base (plate).

[jicecone]

I can live with that. Don't do NCAA ball anymore so I was just going by the what I read.

I guess I should know better though.

Thanks for the clarification.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by Matt

None of it can be applied (as of now,) and here's why--

The rule was written with the very specific intent of protecting fielders with the ball. The verbage hasn't changed since the adjustments to other related rules. So, the question is if the rule should still be enforced with its original intent, or not? Unless Jim Paranto comes out and says that the clause should have been rewritten, it still refers only to fielders with possession.

I think it's a ridiculous notion that a fielder who has possession of the ball is less prepared for a runner who aims to collide with him than a fielder who just mishandled a batted ball as in this play, or a fielder who is waiting for or in the act of catching a thrown ball. When that fielder is focused on the ball instead of the runner, he's not going to be able to brace himself for impact. In this day and age where concerns for concussions in sports has gone viral, I find it hard to believe the rule is intentionally so narrow focused.

Surely someone of authority has viewed this video to determine who needs to be suspended, and determined that an Approved Ruling needs to be announced now to address this huge chasm in the collision rule.

[MD Longhorn]

Manny - if they don't have the ball, they're not supposed to be in the way in the first place. The rule was written to stop the practice of players trying to crash through fielders that had the ball, trying to dislodge the ball. It was not written to protect fielders who are obstructing.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Manny - if they don't have the ball, they're not supposed to be in the way in the first place. The rule was written to stop the practice of players trying to crash through fielders that had the ball, trying to dislodge the ball. It was not written to protect fielders who are obstructing.

Perhaps. But the obstruction rule shouldn't give a runner carte blanche to assail a fielder either. Competent umpires can see an obstruction infraction without the collision.

[charliej47]

The "step and a reach" rule for NFHS only pertains to Softball. they have left it out of baseball. The Softball Case book actually has those words in the play.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by charliej47

The "step and a reach" rule for NFHS only pertains to Softball. they have left it out of baseball. The Softball Case book actually has those words in the play.

The words might not be there, but the concept certainly is.

[charliej47]

I went back and looked. Baseball states "initial play" for protection. I would have ejected because the runner left the base path to dump the fielder. I would deem that malicious.

[jicecone]

Bottom line here guys, in this case the batter-runner blantly traveled into fair territory to crash into the fielder and contact would have been made whether the fielder had gained possesion of the ball or not. I am penalizing that in any game I do.

Matt may be hundred perecnt correct that the the intent of the NCAA Collision Rule may not fully apply here however, I am sure there are other sections more appropriate to cover this. Again my familarity of NCAA rules may not be up todate but, I cant imagine NCAA condoning what happened here.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by charliej47

I went back and looked. Baseball states "initial play" for protection.

8-4-2g "a fielder is not protected except from intentional contact if he misplays the ball and has to move from his original position"

1) "move from original position" is essentially the same as, and is interpreted as, "step and reach"

2) you can certainly make a case that the OP was "intentional contact" (even if you don't judge it to be MC; and it's (practically) required if you do judge it to be MC)

[charliej47]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

8-4-2g "a fielder is not protected except from intentional contact if he misplays the ball and has to move from his original position"

1) "move from original position" is essentially the same as, and is interpreted as, "step and reach"

2) you can certainly make a case that the OP was "intentional contact" (even if you don't judge it to be MC; and it's (practically) required if you do judge it to be MC)

Bob,

I argued with several interpreters here in Ohio and they all stated that if the fielder has to take a step to pick up a miss-played ball, then he is not protected.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by jicecone

Matt may be hundred perecnt correct that the the intent of the NCAA Collision Rule may not fully apply here however, I am sure there are other sections more appropriate to cover this. Again my familarity of NCAA rules may not be up todate but, I cant imagine NCAA condoning what happened here.

No, man...I'm stating the opposite--the intent to penalize is probably there, but until they actually specify it, there's nothing to go on.

[umpjim]

Originally Posted by charliej47

Bob,

I argued with several interpreters here in Ohio and they all stated that if the fielder has to take a step to pick up a miss-played ball, then he is not protected.

Regarding the OP and NCAA, NCAA goes so far as to protect a fielder who misplays a batted ball, chases after it, and then is in the act of picking it up.


A.R. 5—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. If the fielder is chasing after the deflected batted ball and contact is made between the two players, obstruction should be the call.

I think, based on how NCAA protects the fielder in that case, that they also want to protect the fielder in the OP and INT should have been called. If you want to slo mo and parse the rules to justify the no call be my guest.

[Sco53]

Originally Posted by Rich

I would call this interference every time under any rule set.

NCAA: Ball's within the immediate reach of the fielder. The fielder's still protected. (Approved Ruling)

NFHS: Ball's within a step and a reach. The fielder's still protected.

OBR: Ball's within a step and a reach. The fielder's still protected. MLBUM.

On top of all of these, the runner seems to alter his path to go at the fielder when he had every opportunity to avoid. The fielder did not move right or left, here.

I'm with Rich, the BR clearly changed direction to get a shot at the pitcher