INT or not?
 

Situation: With no outs, R1 on 3B and R2 on 2B, B3 hits a ground ball to F5, who deflects the batted ball toward F6. While attempting to field the deflected batted ball, F6 collides with R2 who is advancing toward 3B.

What's your call?

Edited: ASA Rules

Ruleset? x

Depends on rule set and my judgment. IOW, there is no standard cookie cutter answer to this one without more information.

The wording sounds very much like that of a question from an ASA test of a couple of years ago. The answer was no interference.

But you have to see it. "F6 collides with R2" appears to indicate that it was more the fielder chasing the ball and running into the runner than vice versa. If the fielder was stationary in trying to field the deflected ball and the runner then ran into the fielder, that would probably be considered avoidable and would qualify as interference. It's a HTBT.

Edited to include rule set clarification: ASA.

This was one of the examples used for this year's Fed presentation. In Fed ball, it's obstruction. And, with F6 colliding with the runner, you're going to have a problem in ASA having anything other than obstruction.

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.

No, F6 is attempting to field a deflected batted ball
 

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

Looking for a citation that reflects this.

Rule 8-7-J-4
 

See title for reference

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.

Exactly
 

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?

Thanks rwest. Shaking the rust off.

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.