Deflected batted ball interpretation

[reccer]

Coach here. I am going to ask this again. When I get off my bucket, I like to be right. I was told by both game umps and the tourney UIC that I was wrong, even after showing them the documentation from this site.
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. He agreed that there was no intentional contact, but that was irrelevant. Since interference took place, by rule, out.

The BU in the game was kind enough to show me this rule in his ASA book:
----------------
Rules Supplement 33. Interference.

It is interference if the batted ball deflects off one defensive player and the runner interferes with any defensive player who has an opportunity to make an out.

---------------------

On the other hand,


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.

--------------------

These two rules are in conflict with each other. Rules supplement 33 does not mention intentional.

WHICH TAKES PRECEDENCE???? (yes I am shouting with my frustration)

The rule itself or the supplement???

[wadeintothem]

"attempting to field" a deflected ball is different than having a "opportunity to make an out".

That said, this is a pure judgment call.

Sight unseen, I dont lean towards the defense on a muffed play.

[reccer]

[QUOTE=wadeintothem]"attempting to field" a deflected ball is different than having a "opportunity to make an out".

---------------------------------------------
I readily agree F4 was attempting to field a deflected batted ball and that she had an opportunity to make an out. Therefore, F4 is not guilty of obstruction

BU readily agrees that there was no intentional interference on the part of R1.

Since BU agrees no intentional interference, according to the rule (not the supplement) train wreck and play on.

[NYBLUE]

Sounds to me like the BU thought F4 had a chance to make an out.
Hence, he ruled INT.

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by reccer

I readily agree F4 was attempting to field a deflected batted ball and that she had an opportunity to make an out. Therefore, F4 is not guilty of obstruction

BU readily agrees that there was no intentional interference on the part of R1.

Since BU agrees no intentional interference, according to the rule (not the supplement) train wreck and play on.

You got the rule wrong.. intent is not the issue here.

Your bolded statement is the answer.

That is interference.

You cant just disregard the rules supplement willy nilly. It is put there as a supplement for a reason.

[reccer]

Originally Posted by NYBLUE

Sounds to me like the BU thought F4 had a chance to make an out.
Hence, he ruled INT.

Yes, F4 had a chance to make an out.

but 8-7 J (4) says runner interference (only if) she intentionally interferes.

I am having trouble getting Blues to accept that the word "intentional" is still part of that particular rule

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by reccer

Yes, F4 had a chance to make an out.

but 8-7 J (4) says runner interference (only if) she intentionally interferes.

I am having trouble getting Blues to accept that the word "intentional" is still part of that particular rule

That's probably because we can read. The rules supplement clarifies this rule. That IS what they are for. End of story.

[reccer]

You cant just disregard the rules supplement willy nilly. It is put there as a supplement for a reason.[/QUOTE]


I agree that the rules supplement supports the BU decision. But how can he (and you) ignore the wording of the rule itself?

It was bang bang. F4 darted in front of R1 and an unavoidable, unintentional collision occurred.

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by reccer

I agree that the rules supplement supports the BU decision. But how can he (and you) ignore the wording of the rule itself?
It was bang bang. F4 darted in front of R1 and an unavoidable, unintentional collision occurred.

I'm ruling based on your description of a text book deflection interference. If you want to change the description, I may change my ruling.

None of it changes the ASA Rule and Supplement though.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by reccer

Yes, F4 had a chance to make an out.

but 8-7 J (4) says runner interference (only if) she intentionally interferes.

I am having trouble getting Blues to accept that the word "intentional" is still part of that particular rule

This argument is part of the problem I foresaw when they insisted on removing the "intentional" wording from the rule.

The argument of the powers-that-be is that just running into the defender attempting to field the deflected batted ball isn't interference unless the umpire judges it to be. Of course, they trust the umpire will take into consideration that the runner may not have been able to avoid getting in the defender's way.

Unfortunately, as we are experiencing in this thread, there is little specific direction in this matter and that only leads to confusion as we now have 42,000 UICs applying their own interpretation.

[greymule]

I believe the rule and the RS are in conflict. The way I have called this play is this: if the contact was avoidable (not necessarily intentional, e.g., ball deflects off F1 toward F6, and the runner from 2B collides with F6 who is in front of the runner and in clear position to make an out), then I call INT. If the ball deflects such that F6 has to chase it down, and F6 collides with the moving runner, then no INT.

But who knows? Maybe they neglected to delete "intentionally" from 8-7-J-4.

The 2007 rule book has the same wording for 8-7-J-4. From the 2007 case book:

Play 8.8-42

With R1 on 3B and R2 on 2B, 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. In (a) R2 tried to alter their path, or (b) after having the opportunity to avoid F6 [sic; I assume this means "R2 had the opportunity to avoid F6."]

Ruling: In (a) the ball remains live and no interference should be called. In (b) R2's actions are judged to be intentional. The ball is ruled dead ball, R2 is out and R1 returns to 3B. B3 is awarded 1B.

Frankly, "R2 tried to alter their [sic] path" is a bit ambiguous. I think it means, "R2 could not avoid the collision." Notice also that the case play does not state whether or not F6 had the opportunity to make an out. I suspect that the people who constructed this case play were thinking that he did have such an opportunity.

[argodad]

Originally Posted by reccer

I agree that the rules supplement supports the BU decision. But how can he (and you) ignore the wording of the rule itself?

It was bang bang. F4 darted in front of R1 and an unavoidable, unintentional collision occurred.

Coach, it was interference. Let's play. Now I walk away.

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by greymule

I believe the rule and the RS are in conflict. The way I have called this play is this: if the contact was avoidable (not necessarily intentional, e.g., ball deflects off F1 toward F6, and the runner from 2B collides with F6 who is in front of the runner and in clear position to make an out), then I call INT. If the ball deflects such that F6 has to chase it down, and F6 collides with the moving runner, then no INT.

Thats a good way to put it.

[BretMan]

Originally Posted by reccer

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

I vaguely recall that thread. One thing I recall is that, if memory serves, we were talking about a deflected, batted ball and subsequent interference with: A) the actual ball, versus; B) the fielder.

These are two completely different rules that cover two completely different form of interference.

I also seem to recall that, on the old thread, I had either mis-stated (or, maybe, mis-remembered ) part of the rule, or mixed the two together, or something like that. I thought that we had corrected that misconception via follow-up posts in that thread.

In other words, the part of my old post you quoted may not have been part of my finest hour!

[reccer]

Originally Posted by BretMan

In other words, the part of my old post you quoted may not have been part of my finest hour!

Well, since you mentioned it, the UIC, when shown your posts, said "this person does not know what he is talking about." So, maybe don't plan on any engagements in Temple, Tx anytime soon.

However, he also said the word intentional had been removed from the rule. He is half right.

I think you are right, and different posts from Andy to Irish to AltumpSteve agree with you.

Thank you all for the discussion