Play

[whiskers_ump]

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.

[outathm]

nothing in all rule sets.

[wadeintothem]

Agree with the above, its a no call.

[BretMan]

Originally Posted by whiskers_ump

Collision was not intentional...

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?

[shipwreck]

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

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by whiskers_ump

several steps behind both 3B and 2B. Batter hits a hard ground ball towards the left side of SS,


Collision was not intentional,

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?

[CajunNewBlue]

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.

[outathm]

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.

[Stu Clary]

Originally Posted by BretMan

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?

Obstruction was my first thought.

[CajunNewBlue]

Originally Posted by outathm

nothing in all rule sets.

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"

[topper]

Originally Posted by CajunNewBlue

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?

[whiskers_ump]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

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?

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]

[Andy]

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.

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by Andy

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.

[Dakota]

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?