INT or not?

[rwest]

Originally Posted by HawkeyeCubP

Why would there be a problem with calling INT on R2? - F6 is attempting to field a batted ball, and is considered to be making a play, per this year's addition to Rule 1 of the "play" definition.

Interference on the runner has to be intentional, even with this years changes, on a deflected ball.

[HawkeyeCubP]

Originally Posted by rwest

Interference on the runner has to be intentional, even with this years changes, on a deflected ball.

Looking for a citation that reflects this.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by HawkeyeCubP

Looking for a citation that reflects this.

See title for reference

[SWFLguy]

From the way the situation is presented--I would have no problem
banging the runner out for interference---the fielder was making
a play on a ball--deflected or not. Thev runner must avoid contact.
At least that is what is in the mind-set of this high schoool umpire
with the recent Federation parameters !

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by SWFLguy

From the way the situation is presented--I would have no problem
banging the runner out for interference---the fielder was making
a play on a ball--deflected or not. Thev runner must avoid contact.
At least that is what is in the mind-set of this high schoool umpire
with the recent Federation parameters !

The runners job is to run to the next base. The runner cannot be expected to know a ball changed direction or have eyes in the back of their heads.

The ONLY way I can call this INT is if, in my judgment, the runner actually did something to cause the INT.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

The runners job is to run to the next base. The runner cannot be expected to know a ball changed direction or have eyes in the back of their heads.

The ONLY way I can call this INT is if, in my judgment, the runner actually did something to cause the INT.

In my opinion, that is why ASA requires intent here. But can there be obstruction? Doesn't the fielder still have a right to field the ball? Does the fact that the ball was deflected change the status of the ball from a batted ball to a deflected ball and does that mean that the fielder loses their protection? In the definition of obstruction it mentions two actions a fielder can commit that prevents the obstruction call:

1. Be in possession of the ball
2. Be in the act of fielding a BATTED BALL.

It doesn't mention a deflected ball. Are they still protected?

Could this be just a train wreck and a live ball or do we have to get either obstruction or interference?

[HawkeyeCubP]

Originally Posted by rwest

In my opinion, that is why ASA requires intent here. But can there be obstruction? Doesn't the fielder still have a right to field the ball? Does the fact that the ball was deflected change the status of the ball from a batted ball to a deflected ball and does that mean that the fielder loses their protection? In the definition of obstruction it mentions two actions a fielder can commit that prevents the obstruction call:

1. Be in possession of the ball
2. Be in the act of fielding a BATTED BALL.

It doesn't mention a deflected ball. Are they still protected?

Could this be just a train wreck and a live ball or do we have to get either obstruction or interference?

From the '07 ASA UIC National Meeting presentation on INT/OBS that I stole the question from, here's the ruling:

Ruling: If, in the umpire's judgement, R2 intentionally interfered with F6 playing the batted ball, R2 would be ruled out for interference. The ball is dead, R1 is returned to the last base touched at the time of interference and B3 is awarded 1B. On the other hand, if the umpire did not believe the contact to be intentional, this would be a "no call" and play continues.

So to use this and answer your last question: Train wreck. I was just shaking off the rust regarding differences between misplayed and deflected balls and runners subsequently contacting fielders making plays on said balls.

[HawkeyeCubP]

Originally Posted by rwest

See title for reference

Thanks rwest. Shaking the rust off.