Groundball to field ON the bag

[Matt]

Originally Posted by David Emerling

I'm thinking these two conditions would be very likely. Since F6 is standing on the bag and R1 is sliding into the bag - the chances that R1 would be in contact and not intentionally upset F6 are quite likely.

I disagree entirely for pro ball. Runners go to the fielder, not the bag. In this case, the location of both happens to be the same. If there's ever contact by R1 on a MI, it's intentional.

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by Matt

I disagree entirely for pro ball. Runners go to the fielder, not the bag. In this case, the location of both happens to be the same. If there's ever contact by R1 on a MI, it's intentional.

Disagree.

Are you saying the runner can't slide into the base if the fielder is standing on it waiting to make a play on the ball?

[David Emerling]

Originally Posted by Matt

I disagree entirely for pro ball. Runners go to the fielder, not the bag. In this case, the location of both happens to be the same. If there's ever contact by R1 on a MI, it's intentional.

First of all, since there were two outs, R1 would not have any need to "break-up" a double play.

The way this play developed was this: the batted ball was a high bouncer up the middle. It just so happened that the ball was going to pass directly over 2nd base. F6 decided that he would position himself on the bag and field it while in contact with the bag - that way, the instant he fielded it, R1 would be forced out. Yet, this was going to be close and R1 was in a race to the bag in an attempt to beat the ball. In the actual play, as it happened in the game, the ball arrived a split second before R1 came sliding into 2nd. An easy call with no controversy. R1 was called out and the inning was over.

But, my question is this: What if R1 beats the grounder to the bag? R1 slides into 2nd and makes significant enough contact with F6 that he cannot field the ball. Obviously, if R1 does something that is overtly intentional, he would be called out for interference. But it's hard to call contact intentional when the fielder is on the bag and the runner is sliding into the bag.

I guess the question is this: Is the fielder protected when he chooses to field a batted ball while positioned on a base? Or, what if F6 chose to field it slightly to the 1st base side of 2nd base - completely blocking R1's access?

I realize that runners have the burden of avoiding interference with any fielder in the act of fielding a batted ball. In fact, the rules allow the runner to actually leave the baseline in an effort to avoid such interference. But that's not really an option when the fielder is standing directly on the bag or slightly to the side of the bag the runner needs to gain access. Remember, this is a force play - so the runner is trying to take the most expeditious route to the bag. He's not going to go around the fielder. It seems particularly unfair to the runner when the fielder is clearly choosing such positioning when he has other options for fielding the ball successfully.

F6 could have easily moved into the infield and fielded this groundball. Yet, he chose to have the ball come to him for the convenience of forcing out R1.

[Rich Ives]

7.08(b ) Comment: . . . If, however, the runner has contact with a legally occupied base when he hinders the fielder, he shall not be called out unless, in the umpire’s judgment, such hindrance, whether it occurs on fair or foul territory, is intentional.

Does anyone really think the runner would have to give up?

[Matt]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

7.08(b ) Comment: . . . If, however, the runner has contact with a legally occupied base when he hinders the fielder, he shall not be called out unless, in the umpire’s judgment, such hindrance, whether it occurs on fair or foul territory, is intentional.

Does anyone really think the runner would have to give up?

Yep. Shit happens. Fielder has a right to the ball, with that exception.

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by Matt

Yep. Shit happens. Fielder has a right to the ball, with that exception.

But in David's question the exception has probably been met.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

But in David's question the exception has probably been met.

Probably. I didn't catch the number of out.

[David Emerling]

This brings up another interesting point. Can a fielder lose his protection by not making a direct effort to field the ball? Rather, he hangs back with the clear intent of "obstructing" the runner's path. In other words, he seems to be using his fielder protection as a tool to hinder the runner. Or, the fielder takes a curiously circuitous path to the ball that hinders a baserunner's progress.

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by David Emerling

This brings up another interesting point. Can a fielder lose his protection by not making a direct effort to field the ball? Rather, he hangs back with the clear intent of "obstructing" the runner's path. In other words, he seems to be using his fielder protection as a tool to hinder the runner. Or, the fielder takes a curiously circuitous path to the ball that hinders a baserunner's progress.

No.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by David Emerling

This brings up another interesting point. Can a fielder lose his protection by not making a direct effort to field the ball? Rather, he hangs back with the clear intent of "obstructing" the runner's path. In other words, he seems to be using his fielder protection as a tool to hinder the runner. Or, the fielder takes a curiously circuitous path to the ball that hinders a baserunner's progress.

The way you worded that, ... sort of.

You say "by not making a direct effort to field the ball".

The rule says nothing about direct. If the fielder is trying to field the ball, no matter how ineptly, and he is the fielder that is protected, then he has the right to field that ball.

Saying "not making a direct effort..." if he, in the umpire's opinion, is not making an effort to field the ball, but instead is TRYING to get in the runners way - now we have obstruction.

The "direct" (vs indirect) is not really the criteria. The moment the fielder is doing something other than fielding the ball, though, he's no longer protected.

(Hence my answer of "sort of")

[CoachPaul]

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.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by CoachPaul

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.

[CoachPaul]

Originally Posted by Rich

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.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Rich

What you describe has no support in the rules.

Plus, it's 5 months late.

[jicecone]

Originally Posted by CoachPaul

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