Your call??

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by umpjim

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.

This AR actually supports a call of obstruction more than interference in this case. The only time a fielder is protected under the plain language of it is during the initial misplay and if he's actually in the motion of picking up the ball. This AR supports a call of interference only if the act of fielding simply means the fielder has come within a step and a reach of the ball.

[umpjim]

Originally Posted by Matt

This AR actually supports a call of obstruction more than interference in this case. The only time a fielder is protected under the plain language of it is during the initial misplay and if he's actually in the motion of picking up the ball. This AR supports a call of interference only if the act of fielding simply means the fielder has come within a step and a reach of the ball.

I'm a little confused. The AR I posted really does not have relevance to the OP other than that I believe NCAA leans toward protecting the fielder. I have seen MLB plays where the pitcher pulls up to avoid getting trucked and no call was made. That's their rules. In this case, I think NCAA wants to protect the fielder and avoid what happened next. We will see what they think. In any case if you think it was obstruction the crew had no call. I'm not good enough to think I would have thought quick enough to get it right in that sit.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by umpjim

I'm a little confused. The AR I posted really does not have relevance to the OP other than that I believe NCAA leans toward protecting the fielder. I have seen MLB plays where the pitcher pulls up to avoid getting trucked and no call was made. That's their rules. In this case, I think NCAA wants to protect the fielder and avoid what happened next. We will see what they think. In any case if you think it was obstruction the crew had no call. I'm not good enough to think I would have thought quick enough to get it right in that sit.

No, I think it was interference, and that the AR you cite isn't relevant at all. What I am saying is if someone wants to use the AR as dicta for this play, that it only covers the fielder at the start and end of the situation, narrowly tailoring his protection. Given that the fielder was contacted while in a futile tag attempt not in possession of the ball, this AR would not protect him: he's not in the initial misplay and he's not bending over to pick up the ball.

[UMP45]

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.

Then they shouldn't be interpreters!