Your call??
 

What have you got on this?

Benches clear in Florida vs. Florida State baseball game - YouTube

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="//www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/FZpHGJy5SHw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

JM

Got some coaches who will have to do some explaining I'm sure to their league offices.

As far as the play, F1 had opportunity to field the ball and muffed it, from the second replay I don't see the BR do anything as far as a flagrant offense simply running to the base.

I would have nothing on the play but would have an ejection for both of the players involved since both of them pushed the other after the play.

I thought the umpires did a good job of handling the original situation before the teams came on the field.

That's my take. Just wondering what they did in the original situation, didn't see it on Sportscenter today.


Thanks
David

I have the same thing as you. The box score says F3 and the batter, as well as F1, were EJed. Guess he did something that wasn't on camera because I didn't see anything from him on the video.

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.

Interference on the batter and a host of EJs + 4-game suspensions starting with F3 and the BR for violations of the NCAA fight rule.

For those that missed the runner going from outside the foul line to inside the line to purposely run over the pitcher, your assignment tonight is to put on your glasses and watch the video at least 3 more times. It is very obvious what his intention was.

Nonsense. Blatant interference.

No Malicious contact by anyone?

Peace

Doesn't exist in NCAA.

Some things to consider for this play.

Collision Rule (NCAA 2014)
SECTION 7. The rules committee is concerned about unnecessary and violent collisions with the catcher at home plate, and with infielders at all bases. The intent of this rule is to encourage base runners and defensive players to avoid such collisions whenever possible.

(1) The runner must make an actual attempt to reach the base (plate). PENALTY—If the runner attempts to dislodge the ball or initiates an avoidable collision, the runner shall be declared out, even if the fielder loses possession of the ball. The ball is dead and all other base runners shall return to the last base touched at the time of the interference.

(2) The runner may not attempt to dislodge the ball from the fielder. Contact above the waist shall be judged by the umpire as an attempt by the runner to dislodge the ball.

PENALTY—If the contact is flagrant or malicious before the runner touches the plate, the runner shall be declared out and also ejected from the contest. The ball is immediately dead and all other base runners shall return to the last base touched at the time of the interference.

(3) The runner must attempt to avoid a collision if he can reach the base without colliding.

PENALTY—If the contact is flagrant or malicious after the runner touches the base (plate), the runner is safe, but is ejected from the contest. The ball is immediately dead and all other base runners shall return to the last base touched at the time of the interference. If this occurs at any base other than home, the offending team may replace the runner. If the contact occurs after a preceding runner touches home plate, the preceding runner is safe. The ball is immediately dead and all other base runners shall return to the last base touched at the time of the contact.

Rich, can you provide a reference in NFHS for the "step and a reach" criteria?

I have 8-4-2g ...A fielder is not protected, except from intentional contact if he misplays the ball and has to move from his original location...1...If a fielder drops a batted ball and contact with a runner occurs during a subsequent attempt to field the ball, the fielder has the greater responsibility for avoiding contact.

You forgot the most relevant part--this only applies if the fielder is in possession of the ball.

If you parse the rule I don't see where position of the ball is required in all cases.

That's because he, for some reason, removed it. The missing part is in bold belpw:

"The rules committee is concerned about unnecessary and violent collisions with the catcher at home plate, and with infielders at all bases. The intent of this rule is to encourage base runners and defensive players to avoid such collisions whenever possible.

When there is a collision between a runner and a fielder who clearly is in possession of the ball, the umpire shall judge:

If the defensive player blocks the base (plate) or base line with clear possession of the ball, the runner may make contact, slide into or make contact with a fielder as long as the runner is making a legitimate attempt to reach the base (plate). Contact above the waist that was initiated by the base runner shall not be judged as an attempt to reach the base or plate.

(1) The runner must make an actual attempt to reach the base (plate).

PENALTY: If the runner attempts to dislodge the ball or initiates an avoidable collision, the runner shall be declared out, even if the fielder loses possession of the ball. The ball is dead and all other base runners shall return to the last base touched at the time of the interference.

(2) The runner may not attempt to dislodge the ball from the fielder. Contact above the waist shall be judged by the umpire as an attempt by the runner to dislodge the ball.

PENALTY: If the contact is flagrant or malicious before the runner touches the plate, the runner shall be declared out and also ejected from the contest. The ball is immediately dead and all other base runners shall return to the last base touched at the time of the interference.

(3) The runner must attempt to avoid a collision if he can reach the base without colliding.

PENALTY: If the contact is flagrant or malicious after the runner touches the base (plate), the runner is safe, but is ejected from the contest. The ball is immediately dead and all other base runners shall return to the last base touched at the time of the interference. If this occurs at any base other than home, the offending team may replace the runner.

If the contact occurs after a preceding runner touches home plate, the preceding runner is safe. The ball is immediately dead and all other base runners shall return to the last base touched at the time of the contact.

(4) If the runner's path to the base is blocked and (1), (2), and (3) are fulfilled, it is considered unavoidable contact (see Rule 2-54, Obstruction)."

It's kind of important, because that's the relevant part of the rule.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.:D

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

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. :mad:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

I agree with INT and MC, from OBR stand point.
F1 didn't get a chance to pick up the ball as he was trying to protect himself IMO, INT.
Then the purposeful contact, MC.

Good base running IMO would have taken the runner outside and into foul territory in a valid attempt to reach the base, which he'd a probably made.

I do find it interesting that both PU and BU simultaneously signaled safe as in nothing there? Did the box score indicate if a runner was allowed to take the ejected runners place at 1B?

Then they shouldn't be interpreters!

Impossible. OBR doesn't have MC.

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.

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.

I think it's important to read the AR's for Interference and Obstruction. Both definitions have AR's that protect the fielder on a ball that is within a step and a reach. In fact I think it's AR 3 under obstruction that states if the ball is within a step and a reach of the fielder the fielder is to be considered in the act of fielding.

Taking over my dad's account for a moment (he should stick to basketball lol)

NCAA Rule 2-50-A.R. 3

If a fielder has a chance to field a batted ball, but misplays it and while attempting to recover it, the ball is in the fielder’s immediate reach and the fielder is contacted by the base runner attempting to reach a base, interference shall be called.

Therefore, IMO this should have been INT.

Mark, Jr.

I figured it wasn't MTD, Sr. He would've written about a thousand more words.

Stands for "my call", no. But, all youth/amateur OBR based leagues I've been associated, have something to toss a player for crashing somebody..

Apologies if the term MC doesn't fit, just handy..

The OP, in my game would get you tossed, simply for the un-sportsmanship-ness of it, this ain't hockey fella's. There will always be train wrecks, this ain't one.

Still wanna know why at a minimum no INT? Maybe the angle they had it appeared F1 was giving up on the ball? But looked purely defensive to me, in my book, INT regardless of the contact. I mean you fake a karate chop at a guy trying to field a ball, I don't care if you touch him or not you probably interfered.

Can anyone post the ultimate ruling(s) from the NCAA? Who/how many got dumped and who/how many were suspended?
Looked to me like a LOT of folks "joined the fight"...

JJ

According to box score, "Top 8th - UF Zack Powers & Danny Young; FSU's DJ Stewart - ejected Bot 8th - UF Justin Shafer - ejected"

Powers was F3, Young F1, Stewart BR. Shafer was a pitcher so he must have done something in bottom 8th to get EJ.

The NCAA video has this play and says that the umpires should have ruled interference.

There was no doubt it was INT. The question was, did the contact violate some other rule, and the answer is no.