Groundball to fielder ON the bag
 

Just saw an interesting play while watching game #7 of the World Series.

With 2 outs and R1, a high-bouncing grounder is hit up the middle. The shortstop positions himself on the bag so that as soon as he fields the ball he is in contact with the bag for the immediate force out.

This didn't happen - but it could have - what if R1 goes sliding into 2nd base and knocks the feet out from under F6 who is standing on the bag at the time, thus preventing F6 from fielding the ball?

The runner would be out for interference, unless somehow he was in contact with the bag and the contact with F6 was unintentional.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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

Take the bag out of the play for a moment. We protect the fielder whether he chooses to charge a ground ball or stay back and play the bounce. He gets that luxury; after all, the offense is who put the ball there.

Now let's add the bag back in. The only difference is that now there is the exception for unintentional contact.

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

No.

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

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")

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.

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

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?

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

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.

[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.

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.

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.

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.

Plus, it's 5 months late.

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.

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.

I agree.

As a side note, I spoke to someone else from my board and he could imagine this situation unfolding in all three types of calls (interference, obstruction, and nothing).

He also had an interesting take on the play at first base on the slow roller with F3 straddling first base and the BR bearing down on him like a freight train. (I had this as interference.)The BR is able to over run first base and the play at first is not a force. The force play slide rule and all of its kissing cousins would not apply. The BR is restricted in his baseline in that he may only stay in the running lane, but is required to cross into fair territory to touch the base. There is literally nowhere for him to go unless he completely gives himself up or gets creative with his slide. He said that even if they two players train-wrecked, he'd call neither obstruction nor interference. It did get me thinking. Certainly an interesting situation.

I like interference there. It's sellable...unless the first baseman gets trucked...then you're going to have a mess.

The end of that rule states, 6.05k .................except that he may run outside (to the right of) the three-foot line or inside (to the left of) the foul line to avoid a fielder attempting to field a batted ball;

6.05k is for coming up the line but not at the bag. The runner must touch the bag or risk being put out on appeal or being tagged out.

Yes I agree, incidental contact can very well happen here however, if it results in the fielder not being able to field the ball, then that is interference. If it is the result of the fielder and runner doing what they are supposed to and there is incidental contact then there is nothing.