Another You Make The Call

[whiskers_ump]

Not really, none of these guys went.....Guess the
way it was explained at the local meeting threw them off.

glen

[rwest]

Originally posted by WestMichBlue
Doesn't matter where a second fielder is located. Once a ball touches a fielder interference cannot be called if the ball is touched by a runner.

WMB

The runner doesn't get a blank check if the ball deflects off of a defender. My rule backing my position is found in POE 33-1-B.

"It is interference if the batted ball deflects off one defensive player and the runner intentionally interferes with any defensive player who has the opportunity to make an out."

I believe intentionally hitting the ball would be cause for interference. I don't believe the interference has to be physically on the defensive player.

I realize the situation described did not indicate the contact was intentional. I just bring it up to refute the statement that once the ball has been deflected by a defender that interference can not be called on the runner.

I noticed that this has changed from last year's rule book which read:

"It is interference if the batted ball ricochets off one defensive player and any player has the opportunity to make an out."

So they've made it mandatory that intent is required.
In the situation described, I would have not called interference under this years rules. Last, year I would have interference because F6 (I beleive) was covering on the play and had an opportunity to make an out.

Wonder why this change did not show up under the 2005 Playing Rule Changes?

JMHO

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by rwest

The runner doesn't get a blank check if the ball deflects off of a defender. My rule backing my position is found in POE 33-1-B.

"It is interference if the batted ball deflects off one defensive player and the runner intentionally interferes with any defensive player who has the opportunity to make an out."

I believe intentionally hitting the ball would be cause for interference. I don't believe the interference has to be physically on the defensive player.

I realize the situation described did not indicate the contact was intentional. I just bring it up to refute the statement that once the ball has been deflected by a defender that interference can not be called on the runner.

I noticed that this has changed from last year's rule book which read:

"It is interference if the batted ball ricochets off one defensive player and any player has the opportunity to make an out."

So they've made it mandatory that intent is required.
In the situation described, I would have not called interference under this years rules. Last, year I would have interference because F6 (I beleive) was covering on the play and had an opportunity to make an out.

Wonder why this change did not show up under the 2005 Playing Rule Changes?

JMHO

Last years RULE (ASA) read:

8.8. THE RUNNER IS NOT OUT.

"F. When a runner is hit be a fair batted ball after it touches, or is touched by, any fielder including the pitcher and the runner could not avoid contact with the ball."

This year's RULE reads exactly the same.

[rwest]

Don't you have to take all of the rulings into consideration? The POE clearly says that the runner can be called out for interference after a deflected ball if in the umpires judgement it was intentional. The change I was referring to is the POE not rule 8.

So what do you have if the ball deflects off of F5's glove and the runner legally off base intentionally deflects the ball away from F6 who was backing up on the play?

[mcrowder]

What are you disagreeing with?

Mike said the runner is not out .... if the runner could not avoid contact with the ball.

You are bringing intentional interference into question - which has NOTHING to do with the situation where a runner "could not avoid contact with the ball". The very nature of INTENTIONAL interference is that if the runner was unABLE to avoid the ball, the contact could not be INTENTIONAL.

[rwest]

Originally posted by mcrowder
What are you disagreeing with?

Mike said the runner is not out .... if the runner could not avoid contact with the ball.

You are bringing intentional interference into question - which has NOTHING to do with the situation where a runner "could not avoid contact with the ball". The very nature of INTENTIONAL interference is that if the runner was unABLE to avoid the ball, the contact could not be INTENTIONAL.

I agree that the situation as described did not include intent and as by rule would not be interference.

What I disagree with is the blanket statement someone made that a runner can not be called out if the ball was deflected off of a defender. That's all. I simply brought up the point about intent to refute the statement.

Sorry this seemed to bother you.

[mcrowder]

No apology needed - it sounded like you were disagreeing with Mike's post, when perhaps you were not.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by rwest
Don't you have to take all of the rulings into consideration? The POE clearly says that the runner can be called out for interference after a deflected ball if in the umpires judgement it was intentional. The change I was referring to is the POE not rule 8.

So what do you have if the ball deflects off of F5's glove and the runner legally off base intentionally deflects the ball away from F6 who was backing up on the play?

A dead ball and runner is out. There is nothing hard to understand here.

If a runner had enough time and wherewithall to intentionally interfere with the ball, then THEY obviously had enough time to avoid said ball.