NFHS 2005 Rules.

R1 on 2B, R2 on 1B. 1 out. F5 pulled in for possible bunt.
Batter slaps a sharp ground ball hitting F5's glove. R1 &
R2 off (legally) with the pitch. R1 attempts to jump the
deflected ball, it hits her in the heel causing it to veer
slightly towards 2B. F6 has followed R1 slightly. When
the ball is touched by R1, F6's position is beyond the diverted path of the ball.

Make the Call.

if a fielder had a chance to field the ball ??
ball is dead-- interference--
R1 is out and put Batter -runner on 1st
and R2 on 2nd. 2 out.

that's my call

Live ball - play on. (8.8.6)

WMB

"F6's position is beyond the diverted path of the ball."

agreed play on

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

Under Fed rules, Interference can be called in this sitch.
I don't agree with it, but it is there.

Dead ball. Interference.
Runner is out. B1 is awarded 1st base. R2 forced to 2nd base. Two outs.
It matters WHERE F6 is located.
As long as an infielder has the possibility to play we should rule interference.

All this according to the only Rulebook I know (it is a translation of I.S.F. Rulebook)

Antonella,

You need to read on. ISF (2002-2005, page 110) Rule 8.10.f:

THE RUNNER IS NOT OUT.

f. When he is hit with a fair-batted ball after it touches, or is touched by, any fielder including the pitcher, an he could not avoid contact with the ball.

"Under Fed rules, Interference can be called in this sitch."

NO - and I quoted the rule earlier. If you read 8.8.6 you see almost the identical words Mike quoted for ISF.

WMB

Nor are they out in ASA per 8.8.f

[Edited by WestMichBlue on Feb 14th, 2005 at 07:24 AM]

Now I am quite confused....
In posting my previous reply I referred tu Rule 8 Sec. 10-e

I'm not so good at translation but in the end it reads something like 'unless, in the umpire judgment, no other player had the possibility to make an out'.

Ready to accept any denial about my call!

A.

Antonella -

I suspect you are looking at the rule that calls interference when a runner is hit by a fair batted ball before it passes a fielder, OR if there is another fielder that (in the umpire's opinion) had a chance to make a play.

This discussion is about out a ball that is touched by a fielder and then hits the runner. For this rule, there is no discussion about another fielder in position to make a play. Simply live ball, play on.

WMB

Wrong call, simply
 

I think I missed the most important fact about this question.

Live ball and play on also to me, now....

Thanks.

A.

You are right
 

I didn't read the sitch carefully.
You are right, of course you knew that but I thought I should bow to your superior field presence.

This play took place in an umpire training game. CAll made
on the field was "Dead Ball", runner out, and send R2 back
to 1B. We always put two "newbies" and a vet in these games
for training purposes. We also had the teams do a couple of
obstructions. Pickoff and play at the plate. Umpires on the
field were not aware that the plays were coming and missed both
of them. Also had a runner leave before a fly ball was touched
by the fielder. Base umpire called the runner out without an appeal.
Worse confusion was on foul ball/foul tip. Every ball tipped and
caught was called an out.

Might be a long season.

Hey, and your problem with that is????? Give them credit. That means they paid attention at the HS clinic! ;)

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

glen

Speaking ASA, I disagree
 

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

Re: Speaking ASA, I disagree
 

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.

What about the POE?
 

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?

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.

Sorry
 

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.

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

Re: What about the POE?
 

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.