The Official Forum
Page 2 of 3 1 2 3
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Baseball (https://forum.officiating.com/baseball/)
-   -   Groundball to field ON the bag (https://forum.officiating.com/baseball/98566-groundball-field-bag.html)

Rich Sun Mar 15, 2015 08:12am
Quote:
Originally Posted by CoachPaul (Post 957841)
If the runner is sliding straight into the bag he has every right to try to beat the force. If the runner beats the ball, the fielder should lift his foot, just like if he was waiting for a feed from another infielder. Just like a catcher can't deny access to the plate without the ball in his possession, a fielder can't deny access to the base without possession. If the runner is simply trying for the base, I don't have interference on the play. If the 2B was camped in the baseline to the right of the bag and was waiting for a slow roller to come to him in an obvious attempt to alter the runner's path, I might have obstruction. He's not 'making an attempt' on the ball. There is a big difference between pausing to field a grounder and hanging out waiting for it. I'd still expect the runner to avoid contact in this example. If the fielder's action resulted in enough alteration of the runner's path, I would award the base.
What you describe has no support in the rules.

jicecone Sun Mar 15, 2015 08:28am
Quote:
Originally Posted by CoachPaul (Post 957841)
If the 2B was camped in the baseline to the right of the bag and was waiting for a slow roller to come to him in an obvious attempt to alter the runner's path, I might have obstruction. He's not 'making an attempt' on the ball. There is a big difference between pausing to field a grounder and hanging out waiting for it. I'd still expect the runner to avoid contact in this example. If the fielder's action resulted in enough alteration of the runner's path, I would award the base.
Yes, there is a decision to be made about whether or not the fielder is in the "immediate act" of trying to field a batted ball or not however, I think the example you gave does not meet that criteria. I think you are implying that if a fielder sits back and waits for the ball to reach him on a slower roller that he is not protected. That is not true. On a batted ball in the infield, any interference with a fielder that has a potential of fielding the ball should result in interference. There are very little exceptions. I agree that you can't have the same for a thrown ball but, I don't believe you were addressing a thrown ball

CoachPaul Sun Mar 15, 2015 10:09am
In the original situation, I would never call such a runner out for simply sliding into a base to which he's being forced. At worst, both players are doing what they are supposed to do. I'd probably just rule 'safe' and get on with life. By his actions he's trying to put out R1. He's not trying to make a play on the ball to throw to first--otherwise he would have closed the distance on the ball. To say he's entitled to freely do that because the ball was batted and not thrown is illogical. This not interference as intended by rule. This is judgment call with no approved or related ruling. What would you say about a slow roller up the first base line with the first baseman straddling the bag and the runner bearing down on him?

jicecone Sun Mar 15, 2015 11:05am
If F3 has a play on the ball then he is being protected. The rules say nothing about how the fielder plays the ball.

CoachPaul Sun Mar 15, 2015 11:07am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich (Post 957844)
What you describe has no support in the rules.
Paraphrase of 7.08b comment....if the runner is in legal contact with a base he shall not be called out unless the interference was intentional. I would judge a simple slide into a base as unintentional.

jicecone Sun Mar 15, 2015 11:09am
[QUOTE=CoachPaul;957853]To say he's entitled to freely do that because the ball was batted and not thrown is illogical. This not interference as intended by rule. This is judgment call with no approved or related ruling/QUOTE]

If it doesn't have a approved or related ruling then you shouldn't have be calling it.

CoachPaul Sun Mar 15, 2015 11:14am
Who else but the umpire should make a call? Rule nine allows us to rule on things not in the rules. We as umpires are the only ones who can make such a ruling.

David Emerling Sun Mar 15, 2015 11:53am
The problem is that it would seem that the runner has the right to have access to the bag and that the fielder has the right to field a batted ball. The fielder has protection and has priority. This is why the rules specifically allow the runners to go around fielders if that is what is necessary to not interfere. But how can a runner go around a fielder who is blocking his access to the bag /and/ worst of all, on a close force play?

Remember, the fielder is not fielding a thrown ball - this is a batted ball.

CoachPaul Sun Mar 15, 2015 12:39pm
The play at first seems to be an easy interference call. Strict adherence to interference rule dictates the BR is out. With the play at 2nd, the runner legally acquired 2nd by sliding into the bag just before continuing into the SS who was standing on the bag. 7.08 protects that runner, in my interpretation.

johnnyg08 Sun Mar 15, 2015 01:35pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by CoachPaul (Post 957869)
The play at first seems to be an easy interference call. Strict adherence to interference rule dictates the BR is out. With the play at 2nd, the runner legally acquired 2nd by sliding into the bag just before continuing into the SS who was standing on the bag. 7.08 protects that runner, in my interpretation.
In this instance, under OBR, runner interference on a batted ball, is a TOP penalty. R1's base at the time of pitch was first base. I think you have to get R1 for interference on this play. The fielder is protected. He altered the play of the infielder.

That's my take.

bob jenkins Sun Mar 15, 2015 01:42pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich (Post 957844)
What you describe has no support in the rules.
Plus, it's 5 months late.

CoachPaul Sun Mar 15, 2015 03:07pm
Unless I'm mistaken, TOP only matters if making awards. R1 had reached 2nd before the possible interference. He acquired it. It's his. No interference. 7.08b comment protects that runner unless he intentionally interferes. All I see here is a close and clean play at second base resulting in the runner being safe. Also, 4.6 in the PBUC references the same thing...being in contact with a legally occupied base (a base arrived at legally) and hindering the play is only interference if intentional.

johnnyg08 Sun Mar 15, 2015 09:20pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by CoachPaul (Post 957879)
Unless I'm mistaken, TOP only matters if making awards. R1 had reached 2nd before the possible interference. He acquired it. It's his. No interference. 7.08b comment protects that runner unless he intentionally interferes. All I see here is a close and clean play at second base resulting in the runner being safe. Also, 4.6 in the PBUC references the same thing...being in contact with a legally occupied base (a base arrived at legally) and hindering the play is only interference if intentional.
I can see that side too. That being said, I think I could sell intentional contact too.

I'd love to see a clip of something like this.

CoachPaul Mon Mar 16, 2015 05:36pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnyg08 (Post 957904)
...I'd love to see a clip of something like this.
That would be interesting, for sure. I think ruling on this type of play would have a lot to do with the visual. Without seeing it, we each have this play unfold in our mind's eye differently. It would be interesting to see if we would all be on the same page after watching such a play unfold. Just my take.

johnnyg08 Mon Mar 16, 2015 05:43pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by CoachPaul (Post 957929)
It would be interesting to see if we would all be on the same page after watching such a play unfold. Just my take.
I agree.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:01pm.
Page 2 of 3 1 2 3
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1