Interference after an error...
 

Can a runner be called for interference with a fielder after the fielder just made an error and is in the process to recover the ball?

Batter hits a pop up down the first base line, pitcher goes to catch it in fair territory and misses it. now takes first or second step to get ball in foul territory and runner collides with pitcher.

Speaking ASA.......yes.........(giving Mike his $0.02 cents).

As long as that fielder in the opinion of the umpire has a chance to make an out..............Interference can be called.

A runner (or batter runner) may not inerfere with a fielder attempting a legitimate play on the ball.

The only instance I know of where this may be considered a "train wreck".....is on a ball hit directly in front of the plate and the catcher and runner both tangle up when they are both trying to do what is expected of them.

This particular play is now outlined specifically in the ASA umpires handbook. Prior to that it was known as the war of 1999.................grin

Joel

Special Guest Appearance :) :cool:

That's what I am thinking!

Hmmmm .
So then the runner is legitamatley running and because of an error by the fielder pushing the ball infront of them and trying to recover it we penalise the runner ?
No way !
If the runner intentionally interferes yes but otherwise I would have OBST

Is the ball not still a batted ball? And is the fielder not in the process of fielding a batted ball? By NFHS rules the runner is out for interfering.

Or other rules on the step-and-reach principle.

Man.........this is a tough crowd............... d;-)

I wish I could come more often, but work and other obligations have been paramount.

Debeau........a fielder still must be given a legitimate shot at fielding the ball. If they kick it 10 feet towards the pitcher...........to me they have lost their protction. However..........think of an awesome F6 who keeps a line shot in front of them and takes it off the chest...........it drops 2 feet in front of them.........and just when they are ready to glove the ball........they get mowed down by R2...........

I have interference.

You have to give a fielder some level of protection............even if they had the opportunity to field the ball.

JMHO.

Joel

After it hits a fielder or is played at then it is no longer a batted ball .
You would then be rewarding a player for making a mistake .
Cant be such an awesome fielder if the cant glove it .
F6 misfields the ball and pushes it into a runners path who accidentally kicks it , so we have dead ball intereference or misfield and fielder dives to regather but dives into a runner , another intereference .
NO the fielder has had their chance .

Where do you find the definition that a batted ball is no longer a batted ball when it hits a fielder or is played at?

Let's try ASA 8-4.F, where it says that after a ball has been touched by an infielder, interference must be intentional. There is no "step and reach" interpretation in ASA; once touched, it is not interference unless judged intentional, either running into the batted ball or the fielder.

This has often been misstated to mean only deflected by another infielder; not so stated. It covers missplays, bobbles, boots, by the same fielder, as well.

Try 8.7.J and POE 33.

Do you say that step-and-reach does not apply in other rules as well?

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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).

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?

.

Yes, but....
 

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.

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.

reccer, what rules?

ASA, I have obstruction.

Go to POE 33.

Dakota: reccer, what rules?


ASA rules

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?

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

POE + Rules
 

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"

That was an earlier post
 

That was in an earlier post. When asked by Dakota for the rule, he said POE 33.

I've got a rule too. Its 8-7-J-4 which says interference with a deflected ball has to be intentional. These are two rules governing two different situations. One is with a batted ball; one with a deflected ball. The defense had an opportunity to make a play but failed to do so when the ball was deflected. Its true they still have a chance, but their protection is more limited now. Interference has to be intentional at this point. You can't ignore rule 8-7-J-4.

This is about interfering with a fielder, not the ball.

So is 8-7-4-J
 

8-7-J-4 is also interferring with a defender. 8-7-L is interferring with a ball.

Case Play 8.8-42 is on point.

R1 on 3B and R2 on 2B when B3 hits a ball to F5. The ball goes off of F5's glove and F6 tries to field the ball when R2 collides with F6. (a) As R2 tried to alter their path or (b) collides with F6 after having the opportunity to avoid F6 and make no attempt to avoid contact.

Ruling: (a) Live ball, no interference. (b) R2's actions are judged to be intentional. Dead ball, R2 is out, R1 returns to 3B, B3 awarded 1B.

This has to do with the same player who booted the ball making the play, I still think when this came up in the clinic, it was considered as the defense making a play and interference on the runner. Now, if it is off a fielder to another player as the casebook states, then yes it has to be intentional.

Maybe
 

However, 8-7-J-4 says "any defensive player" this includes the one who booted the ball. I realize the case play indicates another fielder, however, the case book doesn't provide examples of all possible plays. I don't believe ASA makes a distinction. At least it doesn't in the wording of rule 8-7-J-4. Was this a national clinic or a local one? If this is what ASA wants, then I'll change my position. However, based on the wording of rule 8-7-J-4 I see no difference between the fielder who booted the ball and another fielder. I can't see penalizing the offense for a defensive mistake unless the offense intentionally interfered.

The problem is we have two rules that conflict with each other and the rulebook does not clearly delineate which one takes precedence.

National staff.

Response from Dave Epperson in Kansas,

Yes, as long as any defensive player has the possibility of getting an out.
Yes, the runner is responsible for not interfering, to and include running out of the baseline to avoid contact.