Interference after an error...

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

Looking at NFHS 8-8-6 (in 2005), I don't see how you can rule interference. I read "Runner is not out when.. A runner is hit with 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." Similar to the ASA rule, this absolutely does not preclude the infielder attempting to play her own bobble; it is touched, therefore contact must be avoidable (translate intentional) to rule the runner out. I know WMB has stated the "step and reach" theory, and I seem to recall he had it from an NFHS Rules member, but I just don't see how any interpretation can, absent specific ruling, contradict another specific ruling.

NCAA has no such similar rule. In their wording, only if no "other" fielder has no chance for a "play" is it not an out. Therefore, we must presume that means the same fielder is protected if she still has a play, too; and the "step and reach" theory seems to be the only one out there.

Isn't there a difference between contact withthe ball and interfering with the fielder, especially regarding intent?

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

...contact must be avoidable (translate intentional) ...

Not sure I buy your translation. Unavoidable has the sense of immediacy. The runner has no chance to avoid.

Intentional has the sense of some act other than legally running the bases.

[rodan55]

ASA states a runner cannot hinder a defensive player from making a play. This includes when the ball has already been touched.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by rodan55

ASA states a runner cannot hinder a defensive player from making a play. This includes when the ball has already been touched.

Where? Rule, please?

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by rodan55

ASA states a runner cannot hinder a defensive player from making a play. This includes when the ball has already been touched.

ASA 8-4.F completely contradicts your statement. The runner is not out after a ball has been touched, unless contact with fielder or ball is intentional. That is black letter law. 8.7-J(1) does not specifically contradict that statement, and 8.7-J(4) agrees with it. POE 33-A.1(b) also requires intentional interference after a deflected ball, and does NOT require or infer that it be an OTHER defensive player, just ANY defensive player. Relative to ASA, I submit there is absolutely no basis to accept "step and reach"; there is black letter "after touched", period.

At the same time, ASA is the only ruleset that puts both possible forms of interference in one rule; contact with the ball after touched, and contact with the fielder after touched. NFHS only addresses specifically contact with the ball; and it protects the runner, who is not out unless contact is intentional. Without addressing the fielder specificly, how can you put a greater burden on the runner if the fielder runs into them after changing direction because the fielder missed the ball? The rule intent seems clear; protect the fielder first; then when the fielder loses that opportunity, protect the runner. Not as clear as ASA, but I would rule the same until I saw black letter ruling that contradicts; and I don't see that.

Finally, to Dakota. I agree that unavoidable and intentional are not synonymous in grammer. In this instance, I would state absolutely that if it unavoidable, it is unintentional. If it is avoidable, but then not avoided, I judge that failure to avoid an act of intent. I think we are picking at nits on this one (while admittedly, relative to NFHS, I find no option but to pick at nits with the unstated ruling).

[reccer]

Coach here. This is what happened recently. R2 on second stealing with the pitch. F5 is playing about 5 feet in and boots a grounder, but getting enough of it that the ball stops in the second to third base path about 2 feet from the third base bag. F5 dives the 5 feet and is laying across the base path when R2 arrives. F5 has not yet obtained possession of the ball when R2 slows down and attempts to side step F5. F5 regains possession and tags R2 before R2 touches bag. PU working alone called out.

My runner asked what she should have done and I said she did all that she could do. But I'm thinking maybe she should have come in with a hard slide and forced Blue to call obstruction.

On the other hand, some of you sound like you would call her out for intentional interference with a fielder attempting to field a batted ball.

Why should my runner be punished for the defense booting the ball?

.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by Smiley

The rule you cite is a batted ball hitting a runner. The OP was a runner colliding with the fielder. NFHS 8-6-10 says runner is out if runner interferes with a fielder attempting to field a batted ball. The definition of a batted ball does not state the point at which a batted ball is no longer a batted ball.

Speaking ASA, 8-7-J-4 says...

Intentionally with any defensive player having the opportunity to make an out with the deflected batted ball.

A batted ball becomes a deflected batted ball when the ball deflects off of the fielder or his/her glove. If the runner initially avoided contact by running behind the fielder and then ran into the fielder when they attempted to retrieve the deflected ball, you have interference only if its intentional. The runner did their job by giving the fielder the opportunity to field the batted ball. The fielder failed to do theirs. They failed to cleanly catch the ball. Once it becomes deflected you have a different rule in play. You can't by rule penalize the runner in this scenario. Intent is required.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

Finally, to Dakota. I agree that unavoidable and intentional are not synonymous in grammer. In this instance, I would state absolutely that if it unavoidable, it is unintentional. If it is avoidable, but then not avoided, I judge that failure to avoid an act of intent. I think we are picking at nits on this one (while admittedly, relative to NFHS, I find no option but to pick at nits with the unstated ruling).

I do not think it is nits. I do not think the two terms are synonymous in NFHS interps, either. I recall (but can't at the moment quote) an NFHS ruling to the contrary. In NFHS, the deflected batted ball is still a batted ball, and a fielder attempting to field it is protected.

I do think there is a difference between deflected and muffed, however. But, I'm not sure NFHS sees it that way.

I prefer ASA's rule, but NFHS is what it is.

[Dakota]

reccer, what rules?

ASA, I have obstruction.

[rodan55]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Where? Rule, please?

Go to POE 33.

[reccer]

Dakota: reccer, what rules?


ASA rules

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by rodan55

Go to POE 33.

Which part? I know the general definition, but to rule a runner out, you need specifics.

The interference rules are different for a batted ball, deflected batted ball, thrown ball, fielder attempting to field a batted ball, fielder attempting to field a thrown ball, fielder attempting to catch a thrown ball, and fielder without the ball. Some require intent, some don't.

So, which rule says a runner is out for hindering with any fielder attempting a play?

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by reccer

Dakota: reccer, what rules?


ASA rules

Then, as I said, from your description, I have OBS.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by rodan55

Go to POE 33.

The POE's are there for further explanation, but you can't just enforce the POE's. You have to take the entire rule book in context. You have a rule that clearly states that interference with a deflected ball has to be intentional. Nothing in the POE overrules that.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by rwest

The POE's are there for further explanation, but you can't just enforce the POE's. You have to take the entire rule book in context. You have a rule that clearly states that interference with a deflected ball has to be intentional. Nothing in the POE overrules that.

Rodan said "Try 8.7.J and POE 33"