Groundball to field ON the bag

[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.

[CoachPaul]

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]

Originally Posted by CoachPaul

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.

[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

[CoachPaul]

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]

If F3 has a play on the ball then he is being protected. The rules say nothing about how the fielder plays the ball.

[jicecone]

[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]

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]

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.