Interference
 

I didn't see this play, so my description will be as without embellishment as I can make it... Joe Friday Just the Facts...

USA rules
B1 hits a grounder down the 1B line. F3 attempts to field the ball and touches it in fair territory, but muffs it. F3 is reaching for the ball, now in foul territory but well within her reach, when she is contacted by the BR (who is in the running lane) so she cannot pick up the ball. This happens about 10-15 feet from 1B. BR makes it to 1B.

Umpire ruled the BR out for interference.

Comments?

Not per USA rules and case plays unless the runner was judged to have done something deliberate. Fielder gets one chance to field the ball, if they muff it the runner must then do something intentional to interfere. The case play covering it is a ground ball to short with runner on 2nd. Short muffs fielding the ball and it rolls slightly behind her. The runner is attempting to run behind the shortstop and makes contact with her as she is trying to pick up the ball. The ruling is not only is it not interference since the runner did nothing intentional, it should ruled as obstruction on the shortstop.

The rule that RKB references applies to the runner.

The part of this that I am struggling with is the player in question is a BATTER-RUNNER. Under that section of Rule 8, the situation with a deflected batted ball is not mentioned. That portion of the rule states that the BR is out if s/he interferes with a fielder attempting to field the ball.

Is F3 still attempting to field the batted ball in this play? Does the deflection exempt the BR from interference that is not intentional?

Common sense says that the BR should be treated the same as an R in this case, but I can't recall any specific rulings on this play.

I'm not sure we have enough information to be definitive. There is deflected, and there is deflected.

In the past, those charged with case play interpretations indicated that if the ball remained adjacent to a player fielding the ball, that it could be considering still in the act of fielding. The case play referenced above is specific to the ball rolling behind the fielder. The interpretation by MB and HP was similar/identical to NFHS (well, because NFHS used the MB/HP interpretation).

Later, NFHS felt the need to define an "initial play", and to include the verbiage "within a step and a reach". ASA declined to follow and would not adopt what was considered a "baseball" definition, but indicated they only differed with "in any direction", believing that a ball proximately in front or to the side could be considered still part of the fielding action, while a ball behind was no longer in the initial action. We were directed to use judgment if the ball was still being fielded, not to consider the "one bite of the apple" approach, nor any one specific distance as too far.

I recall HP using the "one bite of the apple" example to ask if F6 was fielding a bounding ball which rolled around in the glove if the runner could then be accountable for "accidental" contact, be protected from interference and awarded obstruction? When participants eventually agreed that would be interference, he then asked if the ball popped out 1"; then 1 foot, then immediately in front of F6. The purpose of the "drill" was to enable the listeners to realize that this issue is similar to art versus porn; difficult to almost impossible to define, but you should know it when you see it.

To the OP; maybe legit, maybe wrong. But we weren't there, and this is judgment.

Andy; unless something specific to a BR rule contradicts, I have always believed you should treat as a subset of runner. There can be no logical basis for treating the play 2' in front of 1st base differently than one 2' after by the same player on the same live play.

I was mistaken when I said the case play said the ball rolled behind, it simply says F6 bobbles it and while trying to pick it up is contacted by the runner.


The rule and case play make no mention of differentiating in how the ball is deflected. It simply says the runner must do something intentional to be called for interference once the ball has been deflected.

In the past, the rule concerning a deflected batted ball required the deflection to be to another fielder, not the one off which the ball deflected. When that changed, IMO it was apparent that the purpose was a deflected ball was a deflected ball without exception.

Since then, again IMO to placate those who cannot get away from the NFHS interpretation, ASA massaged the interpretation to cover the fielder still in the act of fielding the all, but in the immediate vicinity of the defender's position. IOW, if there was a bobble, the runner could not just bowl him/her over and claim it was a deflected batted ball. OTOH, if the ball deflected to the right, left, behind or in any direction which would require the defender to move to the ball, the runner cannot be expected to instantaneously levitate, disappear, whatever to avoid an unexpected deviation by the defender.

HP always talked to his audience's level, so what may have been completely understood by one group may not have carried water to another. Unfortunately, some would start overthinking it and the message was lost.

Yep.