Interference/Deflected off the pitcher

[jwwashburn]

Speaking NFHS

In a rules meeting the other day, a new umpire asked something and I did not have a good answer.

We read and re-read the book.

Runner interferes with SS making an initial play on the ball and she is out.

Runner interferes with SS making a play on a grounder after the ball deflects off the pitcher and she is out.

Runner is right in front of SS after the ball deflects off the pitcher and it hits the runner and the runner is NOT out. (unless, she interfered intentionally, of course)

The new guy asks me how this makes any sense. I guess I had never thought of it this way.

Comments?

Joe in Texas

[BretMan]

Makes about as much "sense" as three outs per half inning (why not two...or four?), batters being allowed to advance to first after getting (an uncaught) strike three or the ball being 12 inches in circumference.

All are conventions that have been adopted or evolved over the long history of the game. On the surface, some just seem to make more "sense" than others.

Somewhere along the line, the powers-that-be have decided that the defense's right to make an unimpeded play on the batted ball is absolute. That's inline with all the other rules covering interference by a runner.

Likewise, they have choosen to absolve the runner of an interference call when unavoidably struck by a deflected batted ball. When the runner/ball contact is unintentional, and caused by the defense erring in the first place, why penailze the runner?

While both palys involve batted balls that are deflected, the similarity ends there. These are really two separate and distinct types of plays and two separate conventions have been adopted to handle them.

[jwwashburn]

I didn't write my original post as coherently as I could have.

I guess what we were discussing is that since a runner can be guilty of interference with a fielder on a ball deflected off the pitcher-why is a runner automatically not guilty of interference if that ball hits her...it creates a situation where she is better off not trying very hard to avoid being hit by the ball.

Joe

[WestMichBlue]

Originally Posted by jwwashburn

-why is a runner automatically not guilty of interference if that ball hits her...
Joe

What am I missing here?

If a runner, off the base, is hit by a batted ball before the ball has passed a fielder (excluding the pitcher) the runner is OUT!

*****************************************

I can see being confused as to why a defender is not protected from interference when the ball deflected off another fielder, but is protected when the ball deflects off the pitcher.

The Initial Play rule is the NFHS's way to bring in ASA's deflected ball or NCAA's ricocheted ball rules. Those rules are based on the assumption that there is no chance to get an out after the ball was not fielded by the intial fielder, so the second fielder does not deserve interference protection. However, the NFHS committee felt that a ball deflected by a pitcher typically does not significantly change directions or slow down, so they felt the defender was still making an initial play, with a chance to get an out.

The NFHS went ASA and NCAA one better by declaring that a defender is still making an initial play on a deflected ball (off anyone) that remains in-flight. Thus the mere act of catching the ball gets an out; the defender is still protected from interference.

WMB

[3afan]

Originally Posted by WestMichBlue

What am I missing here?

If a runner, off the base, is hit by a batted ball before the ball has passed a fielder (excluding the pitcher) the runner is OUT!

...
WMB

that was my immediate thought ........ runner is OUT in this case

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by WestMichBlue

What am I missing here?

If a runner, off the base, is hit by a batted ball before the ball has passed a fielder (excluding the pitcher) the runner is OUT!

Speaking ASA

Uhhh....no.

A runner hit by a fair, deflected (by anyone) batted ball is out only if, in the umpire's judgment, have avoided contact with the ball (8.8.F)

However, the NFHS committee felt that a ball deflected by a pitcher typically does not significantly change directions or slow down, so they felt the defender was still making an initial play, with a chance to get an out.

That is, IMO, one helluva presumption. What happens when it does change directions significantly? Is the rule then ignored? Who determines if it was significant or not? Is it assumed that if it is significant the defender could not get an out and the runner cannot interfere?

Too many variables by using the term "initial play", IMO.

[Andy]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

...That is, IMO, one helluva presumption. What happens when it does change directions significantly? Is the rule then ignored? Who determines if it was significant or not? Is it assumed that if it is significant the defender could not get an out and the runner cannot interfere?

Too many variables by using the term "initial play", IMO.

That, in my opinion, is the issue with the NFHS rule.

The rule was written with the assumption that WMB outlined in mind. However, the rule was written as an absolute...if the ball is deflected by the pitcher, a subsequent infielder is still in the act of making an initial play. No allowance for judging the "significance" of the deflection.

Personally, I like the ASA rule better. A runner has very little time to react to a deflected ball and should be protected from unintentional interference with either the ball or the fielder.

[BretMan]

Originally Posted by jwwashburn

I didn't write my original post as coherently as I could have.

Made sense to me.

You offer two scenarios:

One: A fair batted ball is delfected by a defensive player, then strikes a runner who could not avoid it.

Two: A fair batted ball is deflected by a defensive player, then the runner susequently interferes with another fielder attempting to play the ball.

Your question is why aren't they both ruled exactly the same way in regards to interference. Why isn't the runner either protected from an interference call on both plays, or called out on both plays?

Maybe my answer was less than coherent!

Somewhere along the evolutionary line of the rules, the rulesmakers have decided that this provides a balance between the responsibilities of both the defense and offense.

Runners are not expected to react and dodge a richocheting ball that takes an unpredictable path and might be impossible to avoid. The defense had their chance to field the ball when it was first touched. Calling a runner out who could not possibly avoid the ball penalizes the offense when they were doing nothing wrong and rewards the defense for erring on the play.

Absent the muff by the defense, there would not have been any runner/ball contact. Don't penalize the runner.

Fielders, on the other hand are generally given absolute protection when attempting to field a batted ball. It is a constant that runs throughout the rules- whenever a play is possible the defense must be given the chance to make it, without interference from the offense.

Absent the contact by the runner, the defense would likely make the play. Penalize the runner.

While both plays are similar in that they involve a deflected ball, they are really different. One involves potential interference with the ball, the other with the fielder. Two different plays with two different standards and rulings.

What was the tag line on the old Bud Light commercial...Why ask why?

[jwwashburn]

Sorry for the delay. For some reason, I was not getting the responses in my email. Your response confuses it further, I think. Does the runner have to get out of the way of the deflected ball or just not get hit on purpose? i agree with what was posted above, the ASA rule makes more sense.

It seems like NFHS is saying that you cannot possibly be guilty of interference if you are hit by a ground ball off the pitcher unless you get hit on purpose.

Joe In Texas

[BretMan]

Originally Posted by jwwashburn

It seems like NFHS is saying that you cannot possibly be guilty of interference if you are hit by a ground ball off the pitcher unless you get hit on purpose.

That is exactly what the rule says.

See rule 8-8-6:

The 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.

Could the runner avoid the deflected ball? That is decided by umpire judgment.

If you judge that the ball could have been avoided, but the runner either let it hit her or intentionally touched it, you have interference.

If you judge that the contact was unavoidable, no interference.

Maybe your confusion comes from mixing together the rules for a runner hit by a non-deflected batted ball, a runner being hit by a deflected batted ball and a runner contacting a fielder on a deflected batted ball. Different plays with different rulings.

[jwwashburn]

Thanks, Bretdude.

I like the ASA rule better.

I think I am creating more confusion in my head with this one than is really there.

I'll just get the coaches together and ask them what they think the 'fair' decision would be.

Joe in Texas

[BretMan]

You say that you like the ASA rule better- but which rule are you thinking of?

Your lprevious two posts (before your this last one) ask about a ball touched by the pitcher that then contacts the runner.

On that play, the ASA and NFHS rulings are exactly the same! In fact, their respective rules read word-for-word identical in this case. See ASA rule 8-8-F and compare it to NFHS rule 8-8-6.

The other play you asked about- ball is deflected by the pitcher, then the runner contacts the fielder (not the ball) is where the two diverge on a ruling.

ASA considers the touch by the pitcher a deflected ball and the fielder cannot be guilty of interference with the fielder unless her act is intentional. So, if the fielder suddenly changes direction and cuts in front of the runner, then the runner unavoidably bumps into her, it is not interference.

The NFHS ruling is different. Consider the same batted ball. Despite being touched by the pitcher, the fielder can still be considered as making the "initial play" on the ball and the fielder still receives absolute protection against interference. In other words, the runner still must allow the fielder to make the play and any contact- intentional or not- can still be ruled as interference.

Does that make more sense?

[reccer]

Permit me to re-visit this old thread.

ASA rules

Batted ball deflected off of pitcher. Runner unintentionally contacts F4 while she is attempting to field the deflected ball. BU (who is well regarded and does area High School games) rules an out. I suggested that if there was no intentional contact, then play on.

Here is what I found from Bretman in a separate thread.

Rule 8-7-J(4)

On a deflected batted ball, the runner would be out for interference only if:
a) the interference is intentional, and; b) the defender still has a chance to make an out with the batted ball.

From what I have read, he is correct for High School ball and I am correct for ASA.

Is my interpretation correct?