Another INT/OBS Question

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by Dakota

I've been thinking this through this whole thread. For a batted ball, "making a play" is not the standard. "Attempting to field" is the standard. In the OP, the umpire has to make a judgment on which fielder is protected by the "attempting to field" standard. If it is the back-peddling F6, it is interference. If it is another fielder (F5, F8, whoever), it is obstruction. There is no requirement that a rule-book definition PLAY be involved at all, and there certainly is no "ordinary effort" standard on making a catch.

Tom, think about the sterotypical bounding ball up the middle with a runner on 2nd. EVERY defensive coach believes F6 can chase that ball that you know she cannot actually field; and you now want to call the occasional collision or other interaction interference because she is only "attempting" to field, and has a better chance than anyone else that also can't make a play?

Sorry, but if she cannot field the ball to make a play, she isn't protected; because isn't "fielding a batted ball". That's obstruction.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

Tom, think about the sterotypical bounding ball up the middle with a runner on 2nd. EVERY defensive coach believes F6 can chase that ball that you know she cannot actually field; and you now want to call the occasional collision or other interaction interference because she is only "attempting" to field, and has a better chance than anyone else that also can't make a play?

Sorry, but if she cannot field the ball to make a play, she isn't protected; because isn't "fielding a batted ball". That's obstruction.

And, what is that bounding ball called? A base hit? And who is the fielder who would be protected (theoretically, since it would be an odd base path...)? One of the outfielders, most likely.

There is no requirement that the fielder be able to make a play (definition: attempt to retire a runner) to be protected from being interfered with; only that she has a chance to field the ball.

Running toward a base hit up the middle is not "attempting to field" in a rules sense. However, the OP only said the fielder could not have caught the ball with "ordinary effort", which is not the standard, but if it was even a question that she could have caught the ball with extraordinary effort, it seems likely she could have at least fielded the ball... maybe not... I wasn't there.

Numerous others have been talking about whether she could make a play, also not the standard. The question should be, could she have fielded the ball? If so, and if she was in the best position of the other defenders, then she is protected and the call is interference.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Numerous others have been talking about whether she could make a play, also not the standard. The question should be, could she have fielded the ball? If so, and if she was in the best position of the other defenders, then she is protected and the call is interference.

But that cannot be considered chiseled in granite, must call it every time situation. That is why we are being paid for our ability to make decisions.

What if the IF is playing in and there is a roller up the middle that no one can get and comes to a rest on the edge of the grass. Under your statement, the player trotting out to pick up the dormant ball is still "fielding a batted ball". Also with the IF in, a ball can literally be past F4 and F6 still giving chase. In that case, the umpire must deem that F6 had the opportunity to make an out. Continuing on, if a pop-up is over the fielder's head and lands beyond, is that not a ball which has passed an infielder other than the pitcher? Now your argument should be, "but it wouldn't have had the runner not interferred with the fielder." A-HA! Another decision to be made! All these decisions is why my wife could not umpire and get a game done within a two-day period

There must be some common sense applied here and part of that is to determine whether there was actually a viable play available even if the fielder fields the batted ball.

Remember, the reasoning behind removing the "intent" from many of the rules involving interference was based upon the umpire to determine whether the player's action actually did interfere with the defense's ability to perform their tasks in the field. That doesn't mean we start ignoring situations just because we don't like the rule, but apply the rule we how we have been taught to apply.

Tom, understand I am not supporting OBS in the OP, just offering variations of how it could be approached within the rules and clinics we all know and attend.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Tom, understand I am not supporting OBS in the OP, just offering variations of how it could be approached within the rules and clinics we all know and attend.

I understand; and I wasn't necessarily supporting INT in the OP, either; it was more I was objecting to the statements that there must be a play (as in the ASA definition, an attempt to retire a runner). Even when the runner will be safe, the fielder still is protected if the fielder is fielding the batted ball. Futile attempts to chase a batted ball are not attempts to field; I agree it is a judgment.

[HugoTafurst]

Originally Posted by rwest

Contact does not always require an INT or OB call. See page 250 of the ASA 2009 Umpire Manual, reproduced here for your convienience:

"Contact between defensive and offensive players does not necessarily mean that Obstruction or Interference occurred."

Having said that, this play does not, IMHO, fall into this category. It has to be one or the other. And as Steve said, its your judgment. The way I read it, I'd think I'd have OBS based on the fact that the defender didn't have a play on the ball.

Thanks for the ASA quote.
Not having my book with me (and not sure when I'll be home) and for the edification of those who do not have a book, could you give an example where int/obs might not be called?
Thanks

[rwest]

Originally Posted by HugoTafurst

Thanks for the ASA quote.
Not having my book with me (and not sure when I'll be home) and for the edification of those who do not have a book, could you give an example where int/obs might not be called?
Thanks

The play I think of is the bunt in front of home plate and there is a collision between the catcher and batter-runner. In this case if neither does anything out of the ordinary, then you have a collision. This exact play is listed on the same page as the quote I gave in the 2008 Rule Book. It is not there in the 2009. Not sure why it was removed.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by Dakota

I understand; and I wasn't necessarily supporting INT in the OP, either; it was more I was objecting to the statements that there must be a play (as in the ASA definition, an attempt to retire a runner). Even when the runner will be safe, the fielder still is protected if the fielder is fielding the batted ball. Futile attempts to chase a batted ball are not attempts to field; I agree it is a judgment.

Just wondering; how do you reconcile that approach (that there is interference with fielding a batted ball without a play) with the definition of interference, which requires that there be a play? Is there any other case or circumstance where you think interference can happen without a "play"?

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

Just wondering; how do you reconcile that approach (that there is interference with fielding a batted ball without a play) with the definition of interference, which requires that there be a play? Is there any other case or circumstance where you think interference can happen without a "play"?

Sure. Base hit hits a runner with the infield playing deep.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Sure. Base hit hits a runner with the infield playing deep.

Well, that doesn't meet the parameter's of Steve's question (fielding a batted ball, not being hit by a batted ball) and, if it was INT, it cannot possibly be a base hit. Oh, I'm sorry, is that a scoring question?

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

..Oh, I'm sorry, is that a scoring question?

Anyway, just to be clear. I have no issue with the interference rule in general requiring a play, however, the defense IS given more leeway on this point when fielding a batted ball. In the OP, the poster even noted that the fielder could not have caught the ball with "ordinary effort" - this, also, is not the standard for judging interference. The benefit of the doubt on a batted ball must go to the defense. RS 33:

... Defensive players must be given the opportunity to field the ball anywhere on the playing field...

[rwest]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Even when the runner will be safe, the fielder still is protected if the fielder is fielding the batted ball.

What if the runner interferes with F6 throwing to first to retire the batter-runner? Are you going to call the batter-runner out even if they were several feet beyond first base when the interference occurred? I wouldn't, because they had no play on the batter-runner.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by rwest

What if the runner interferes with F6 throwing to first to retire the batter-runner? Are you going to call the batter-runner out even if they were several feet beyond first base when the interference occurred? I wouldn't, because they had no play on the batter-runner.

That's not fielding a batted ball. It's making a throw. The standards are different. You must have a play for interference with a throw but not with an initial play. If there isn't a runner advancing somewhere then you won't have interference with an attempt to field a ball.
________
Hyde Park Residence 2 Condo Pattaya