Obs/int
 

(FP) Batter chops a lazy bunt right in front of home plate where it dies. F2 springs up to retrieve ball as batter, (now BR) exits the batter's box to run to first. They collide, falling to the ground. OBS or INT?

I pick "C": None of the above.

Live ball, play on!

sigh

its INT. (assuming NFHS)
Batter/runner interfered with a fielder on initial attempt (doesn't matter if its accidental or intentional)

This assumes that the ball is near the fielder, no? If it's halfway down the line they aren't making the initial play yet?
________
Web shows

Ummm? Belch? :confused:

The interpretation I offered has been supported by the NFHS in the past. I am not aware of it having been changed or redefined since then.

Finding it documented might be a different story. Never one to base a ruling on "because I said so", I will assume the burden of proof to find said documentation and post it here if found.

"Batter chops a lazy bunt right in front of home plate where it dies."
No, i am not assuming its anywhere but there.

LOL... no wasnt sighing like that... I find these questions difficult. did one of those thinking cap sighs :D

I copied this from a past post by WMB on the NFHS forum:

"You’ve seen the direction the NFHS has been heading the past few years with respect to contact between a fielder and runner. For the most part, they have taken away incidental contact (train wreck) and are forcing you to call either interference or obstruction.

There are, however a couple areas where you still can call incidental contact. One occurs when a defender has the ball and steps into the runner or in front of the runner. You have contact either as the result of a tag play, or the runner had no opportunity to avoid the contact. If the defender loses the ball you probably have Safe; if they hang on you probably have an Out. But you do not have Obs or Int.

The other incident occurs within the first step or two by a RH batter going to 1B and a catcher going for the bunt. If you have contact you may judge interference, or may judge obstruction, but you can also have a no call (incidental contact). From the NFHS SB Committee: “ It’s a fair statement to make that the play situation involving a catcher moving to field a bunt in front of the plate while the BR vacates and heads toward first has always been given wider latitude regarding obstruction/interference.”

Also see pg 46 in your 2006/07 Umpires manual."

hrmmm if they support the first OP as a wreck... I wonder how they would feel about this one?
R1, batter hits a blooper 3 feet left of first base and the ball lands and dies there due to a sandy or soft infield. F3 who is a 2 steps left of first base and one step back of baseline, moves to pick it up. R1 leaves first base to advance to second base. R1 and F3 collide. (I'm calling this INT until told otherwise)
heck, I could make two more similar plays all the way around the bases. then we could have 4 total plays. :)

"If you have contact you may judge interference, or may judge obstruction, but you can also have a no call (incidental contact)."

cool a three'fer!

I dunno, im still prone to thinking that the runner has the responsibility of avoiding the fielder and the ball... specially since being tagged with it ends her trip real fast. ;)

F3 and R do not start the play (generally speaking) in as close a proximity to each other as F2 and B and R as an opportunity to react to the ball (generally speaking).

I had found the passage quoted by Cecil above and was just about to post it here. He beat me to it, so I'll move on to my next piece of evidence...

ASA Umpire Manual (2008 ed.), page 201: Collision:

"Simply because there is contact between the defensive and offensive player does not mean that obstruction or interference has occured. This is definitely NOT (emphasis, their's) the case.

The field is layed out in such a manner that it puts the offensive and defensive player on a collision course.

The right-handed batter, for example, who lays down a bunt in front of home plate is on a collision course with the catcher while running in a direct line to first base. Each player at this point is within legal rights- the batter taking a direct line to first base and the catcher coming out from behind home plate to field the ball.

The questions that must be answered are:

1. Did the batter alter their (sic) direction in any way drawing contact, in an attempt to receive an obstruction call?

2. Did the catcher alter the attempt to field the ball in any way so as to draw the interference?

3. Could the catcher actually make a play?"

My third piece of evidence- at the risk of being blasted for using a baseball reference- was going to be the infamous "no call" by umpire Larry Barnett in the 1975 World Series, on a bunt play involving Red's batter Eddie Armbrister and Red Sox catcher Carton Fisk. Okay...different sport, but same play and same concept (if you're not familiar with the play, Google it).

As long as both players, the batter and the catcher, are making an immediate and direct move to do what they're "supposed to be doing", contact may be ruled as incidental- no penalty, play on.

If one hesitates, pauses, alters their path or in some way purposely initiates the contact, the umpire has to judge it a little differently and interference or obstruction can be the call. The close proximity of the batter and catcher on this play, and the inevitable crossing of their paths, has led to an interpretation and ruling that acknowledges the unique circumstances.

Your first time reading the ASA book in awhile? :D

All the above would be really handy.... if i called ASA ball. but since I dont (well ok, i do but thats later in the year.) and we are in the FED season.
I scoured the rulebooks and the casebooks (that i have) and all I get for the OP is that the batter is now a runner and must avoid interfering with a fielder making the initial play on a fair batted/bunted ball.
So, that being said.. was the BR doing what she is suppose/have to be doing? NO.
Was the fielder (catcher) doing what/how she is suppose to be doing? YES

Now that ive said all that, consider this. I have two coaches on this play that want a call either way... i give them a "thats nothing mechanic" and now i have two coaches pissed off and the defensive coach says "ummm hey blue doesnt the runner have to avoid contact on this play?. I say "yes normally, but not in this case and not by rule. but by some pontification by the NFHS board that wont make a rule specific to this unique play"
Ok, thats more than 5 words. :rolleyes:

Tom, I put that "(sic)" in there just for you!


If we do some digging, I would imagine that we could find other situations that are covered by "interpretation" rather than a verbatim black-and-white printed rule.

As an NFHS umpire, I assume that you have their Umpire Manual. I do not (I do FED baseball in the spring, ASA/NSA softball the rest of the year). If so, I would be curious to know what it says there about this play. That might be handy, too!

By the way, this ruling isn't something unique to ASA or FED softball. It is a ruling common to multiple baseball and softball rule sets.

I do have the NFHS umpire manual and its not covered. All I can find is the earlier posts of "give them wide latitude for this play" and I'm not saying i totally disagree with any of them. I just find that it makes our job a little harder (but, I guess that's why we get the big bucks :rolleyes: )

There is a play in the NFHS case book that is very similar--
Page 50, 8.2.6 situation D.
>
There are no runners on base with two outs. B3 has a 3-2 count. On the next pitch B3 swings and misses. The ball bounces off F2's shin guard and lands in front of home plate. (drop third strike in fair territory) As F2 moves out to field the ball,B3 runs into her, knocking her down.
Ruling- This is interference..........
>
I would assume that any contact, on a playable ball, would be interference. I don't think it is only INT if she is knocked down

This play is ruled interference because it is specifically mentioned in the rule (8-2-6), The batter-runner is out: Art 6. ....interferes with a dropped third strike.

The ball being over fair territory is not part of the rule, just that it is a dropped third strike. I believe the distinction is made because in any other circumstance the batter (or BR) has to do something "intentional" to cause interference if she is in the batter's box.