Play
 

NFHS rules.

Bases loaded, no outs. SS playing more towards 3B than halfway between 3B and 2B and
several steps behind both 3B and 2B. Batter hits a hard ground ball towards the left side of SS,
who makes a play on the ball, but it goes off her glove in and towards 2B, beyond a step and
reach. SS still bent over is hit by the runner advancing from 2B to 3B and goes to the ground.
All runners reach safely to the next base.

What would you as base umpire call on the play, if anything?

Collision was not intentional, SS left the game due to dizziness and headache.

nothing in all rule sets.

Agree with the above, its a no call.

That qualifier right there lets the runner off the hook.

I believe that FED is unique in that a runner can be guilty of interference with a fielder even if that fielder is not fielding a batted ball or making a throw. Didn't they modify their interference rule a couple of years ago (rule 8-6-10d)?

I would have to do some digging to try and find the interpretations that were issued back when the rule was changed. My recollection is that they enforced the idea that a fielder could just be standing there, totally not involved in any play, and if the runner ran into her in such a way that it could have been avoided you would have interference- as long as the contact was judged as "intentional". That the runner ran into the fielder (not maliciously) when she could have avoided the contact equated to "intent".

It is stated that the contact by the runner on this play was not intentional. I would take that to mean that the runner did not have an ample opportunity to avoid the fielder in her path, making the contact unavoidable.

Now, a question: For those that say they would have "nothing" on this play, were you so focused on the fact that the runner did nothing wrong that you totally forgot about obstruction? :confused:

Since NFHS doesn't allow a "train wreck" I would call obstruction. Dave

I'm trying to reconcile these two comments. How or why was the runner that far off the baseline? Starting at 2B and the defender playing back eliminates the need to start off to 3B going behind the fielder. The OP does not give any indication the SS stepped up to the ball, but to her side.

What am I missing, Glen?

This is OBS.... play was made by fielder, who muffed it beyond what is allowed (step and a reach) and was in the way of the runner (who then obtained next base.. thereby releasing the OBS) unless you judged the runner to have chased down and caused the collision... but i digress. My question is ... does she need a M.D. note to be allowed to play in the next game? (I would lean towards ...yes)

just my 2 pennies.

I will agree with calling obs. Since runners reached the next base safely it is just putting up the arm, saying obstruction, then dropping the arm. If you want to pick the nit, it is obstruction, not 'nothing'.

But it really isn't a call, it's just a statement, to let everyone you know it happened.

Obstruction was my first thought.

NCAA its a warning.... next one gets her a 7/or whatever is left of the game inning timeout. assuming NCAA is considered a "rule set" ;)

Please explain this to us. Who gets the warning, and what for?

My Bad,

SS did step towards the ball putting her into runners line.

Just when you think you got everything covered, you find that you don't. [meaning
the way the play was presented to you guys]

I've got obstruction on the SS.

SS does not have the ball, she is no longer making an initial play, and she has impeded the runner. Sounds like textbook obstruction to me.

At the conclusion of the play, there is most likely nothing to do, since all runners are standing on the bases they would have obtained without the obstruction.

She was in the immediate act of fielding a batted ball - the fact she was not sucessful does not negate that. The ball passing a fielder immediately (albiet unsuccessfully) fielding the ball does not mean that fielder must go *poof*. There is no requirment the fielding of the ball must be sucessful.


Hence, from my point of view, it cannot be OBS.

There is nothing in the scenario to me that makes me think she was stepping after a deflected ball or a step and reach situation. Just she was still bent over after being in the act of fielding a ball.

The thing that bugs me about this play is, what was the runner going to do if the attempt to field had been successful (or still within step & reach)? IOW, this runner coud see the F6 dead ahead attempting to field a batted ball yet apparently made no attempt to avoid?

Wade,
Hang on a minute, F6 had the opportunity to cleanly field the batted ball and muffed it. The ball is beyond a step & a reach, so F6 must go "poof". I've got obstruction here, too.

fielder guilty of committing OBS gets a verbal....Umpire who made the call tells U1, who writes it down on back of lineup card.... and U1 notifies coach. or at least thats the way it was handled last night and thats how i understand it from the CCA.

wrong?

I just knew the *poof* thing was gonna come up.... :D

That being the case, I would agree with the OBS unless you, as the umpire, believed the runner acted in a manner to create the OBS.

CNB, no warning on this play, the OBS did not happen while rounding or returning to a base.

Rounding or returning only.

Also, the penalty for a second infraction by the same fielder is a base award, not ejection.

topper, don't wake him, he is still dazed.:D

You do, for not showing up in Sulphur!:eek:

Yikes... i totally blew that one. :mad: ok, gonna have to do some "light reading" before my series this weekend. *&@@#$ dunno why i cross threaded that with the obstructing the batters line of vision.

Thanks for catching me on that. :o

but at least im not the one on the field that told me... ok thats one obs.. the next one gets her ejected and the third by any other fielder, they go and the coach goes too... TG we didnt have 3 obs last night. rofl.

While I agree there could be an expectation that a defender go *poof - I guess the hang up would be a time frame as applied to a fielder being considered in the act of fielding a batted ball.

Once the ball is past the defender on the muff - are they still protected at all and/or for how long?

This is not a deflected ball scenario - so just in general.

.5 second? no seconds? 1 second?

The fielders body is immediately in the postion after the muff in this case correct?

So since they were unsucessful in fielding the ball they are considered to not be in the act of fielding it?

I'm not so sure.. but interesting discussion.

ok, if im robbing you (im in the act of) if ive already robbed you or at least tried and that event ended (its something different)
no? (probably because you've shot me :D )

If a defender dives for the ball and misses, landing on the ground and the runner has to jump over that defender - the call that is being adocated is OBS -

I have a no call on both cases. I still consider this type of issue as "act of fielding a batted ball"

Problem is, wade, NFHS does not use the phrase "act of fielding a batted ball." They use the phrase "making the initial play on a batted ball" and they define what that phrase means:

BTW, I just noticed a loophole in the initial play definition: It apparently is not an initial play to attempt to catch a ball in flight that has NOT touched another fielder! :D

d@mn NFHS... lol

Interesting differentiation,

I'm at work and without a rule book and since I'm not working HS ball this year I have not studied up on NFHS --

It seems in NFHS's effort to write it a different way, they (IMO inadvertantly) change entire interpretations.

This is the same thing as leaving "play" out of interference.

I still got a noncall, if I'm on the field right now, and i guess the wrong call.. but I'm not calling OBS on a fielder in the immediate act of fielding a batted ball.

The ONLY reason step and reach is an issue ever is because the fielder is relocating, conceivably into a new new path, and receiving further/extra protection -

To me, since deflection is not the issue - the fielder still in the same position immediately after the miss (ie a dive, or bending over whatever - still in the immediate act - although ultimately unsucessful) that is still fielding the ball.

Since NFHS is not interested in "fielding the ball" I suppose I should bow out of the discussion and leave it to you NFHS gurus.

This seems to support Wade's case. If this is an exact quote from the rule book, it makes no mention of the position of the ball, just the fielder. Interesting.

Interesting; I hadn't noticed that, but I suspect it is an editorial error, similar to the one in b. Notice the wording in the NFHS Case Play dealing with this rule:

voila... gotta love the caseplays.

Thats pretty conclusive.. not sure I agree with it, but that doesnt matter - definitely the rule. Obviously the same thing would apply to a diving play and I'm not sure about that; but no doubt how they want it called. I guess the moral is: catch it.