I am an umpire and I have aquestion about a call that was made in a game I was playing in.

We had runners on 1st and 2nd. Batter hits the ball to the 3rd baseman. 3rd baseman boots the ball backward and toward shortstop. Our runner is in the basepath between 2nd and 3rd, and as the 3rd baseman turns to go get the ball they collide. The homeplate umpire calls our runner out for interference and says he should have went around the 3rd baseman.

I felt like this was the wrong call to make as there was no way for our runner to get out of the way.

Was this the right call or was it wrong?

Thanks

Hmmm.
 

hdsanders,
Under which rule do you think the runner was not out?
mick

Too me it was incidental contact. Our runner had no way of going around the 3rd baseman. 3rd baseman was fielding the ball in front of the basepath and then when he booted it he turned into the basepath and our runner had no where to go. That was my question, I could not find a ruling.

hdsanders,
Seems to me that the fielder was no longer fielding a batted or thrown ball, that there was no intentional interference, that the runner could not avoid the contact.

The way you described the play, I agree, the contact was incidental and the defense should not be rewarded or punished for the subsequent contact. Thus, <s>Jump ball!</s> Train wreck!

However, I wasn't there, but "in the judgement of the umpire...."


mick

Yeah, I agree with Mick. Picturing the play as you described it, I'm just calling it a train wreck and playing ball. Now, if all this started several steps apart and the 3rd baseman was heading towards the ball and the runner ran into him/her, it's gonna be interference.

If ASA rules were being used it is covered in Rule 8-7j-5:

The runner is out when the runner interferes intentionally with any defensive player having the opportunity to make an out with the deflected ball.

Question # 75 on the ASA test. Must be intentional!!!!!

PBrown2300,
Welcome to the forum.

No, that rule doesn't work for the situation described by hdsanders. He used the word *incidental*.
I think if the runner intentionally ran into F5 who was going after his mistake, even I could have made a call. :)
mick

Sure glad to see that our moderator is getting involved
with posting.

However, I am going out on a limb here. I disagree with a "train
wreck" call. That is usually reserved for receiving a thrown
ball. On this play I visualize F5 booting turning toward the
booted ball and being hit by runner. Without having been there,
at this point, I got INTF.

JMHO,

Welcome
 

http://www.stopstart.freeserve.co.uk/smilie/wave2.gif,

Welcome to the board hsanders and PBrown2300.

Without disagreement, we stumble into mediocrity. :)

So, Glen, what is your term for a fielder (on track to the ball) and a runner (on track to a bag), each going in opposite directions and ending in a *legal* collision?

Ball buster.
Legal entanglement.
Baseless intrusion.
Oopsy.
mick

<HR>
I wish I woulda picked Texas over Princeton.

Allow me to add a slightly different viewpoint to this situation. OBR (Yeah - I know, OBR ain't softball :D ) has an interp that basically says if the deflected ball is within reach of the fielder, you are still gonna protect him. More than a reach and he's a likely candidate for obstruction.

If the fielder pivots into the basepath reaching for the ball - it could still be INT. Otherwise - possibly OBS. HTBT.

I generally go with the "step and a reach" criteria for determining interference on a muffed ball. the bottom line is whether the fielder still had an opportunity to make an out on some runner. If ItUJ, she did then you have interference, if she doesn't have a play, then you most likely have obstruction.

SamC

Speaking ASA.

Is it a batted ball?

Yes. So is it a deflected batted ball?

Yes. So did the fielder have a opportunity to make an out? (Notice - not a play, an OUT! Notice - "opportunity" not "possibility")

Yes. (I'm assuming "Yes" since there was a runner heading right for him - easy tag.) So, was the contact intentional?

Assuming there was no thrown elbow or deliberate path deviation, I'm going to judge this in part by how far apart the players were when F6 went after the deflected ball.

Remember: the runner is assumed to have his head up and able to see all of the action in front of him. The fielder is assumed to be focusing on the ball. Benefit of the doubt goes to the fielder every time when fielding a batted ball.

If the runner was several strides away and just barrelled into the fielder - or as in your description, cut it too close - that <u>may</u> qualify for "intentional" - but is something you have to see to judge - HTBT.

If the runner was too close to react and avoid the contact, the we have incint... incend... heck, a train wreck.

There is no obstruction here. Why? The fielder was in the act of fielding a batted ball.

Good call, kono.
I think there had to be some distance "beyond reach" in the sitch. Runner from second, 3rd base kicks the ball toward short.

Based upon the statement "...as the 3rd baseman turns to go get the ball they collide.", I wonder:<LI>How big was the lead that the runner had, or how fast was that guy? <LI>Where was F5 playing, way off the line?
<LI>Was F5 very slow? :)

mick

Tom,

I have to disagree with your last statement. I think that if the ball gets far enough away from the fielder, they are no longer fielding a batted ball, instead they are chasing after a ball, and can be guilty of obstruction if they get tangled up with a runner.

SamC