Another INT/OBS Question
 

R1 on 2B. Batter squares to bunt. Infield charges in. Batter swings and hits a looping fly ball to short left center field. F6 (after initially charging in on the fake bunt) starts back peddling (did not turn around to run) trying to make a play on the ball. F6 while back peddling and R1 running from 2B to 3B make contact. Ball falls into outfield grass about 3 feet. R1 advances safely to 3B, BR makes it safely to 1B. In my judgment F6 could not have caught the ball with ordinary effort.
Question: When you have contact between a runner and a fielder is a call of OBS or INT required?

This is pretty clearly OBS - I'd think you need to throw the arm out on this one to let em know you are watching then go about your business. This is not the ASA definition of a wreck so you have a call here.

With all due respect, I would have to disagree with Wade. I think the "trying to make a play on the ball" makes it INT. Runner interfered with a fielder trying to make a play on a batted ball.

Question: When you have contact between a runner and a fielder is a call of OBS or INT required?


Yes..... someone may nit pick an exception, but basically yes...

It could be - I pictured it as the player having no play. Simply back peddling when a ball is shot over her head is not making a play on the ball. If the player was in fact making a play on the ball, that would be INT. That would require there to be a play to be made.

How I read the scenario was there was no play to be made. This seemed more to me to be a hopeless back peddle.

In either case though - a call is needed on this one IMO. Either INT or OBS. I would lean towards OBS on a hopeless back peddle into a runner. Definitely INT if there is a play to be attempted.

I'm there; it must be one or the other.

Your decision; attempting to make a play isn't a criteria. If you truly believe F6 could have a play to make the catch (ordinary effort only applies in the IFF rule), it is interference. If you judge (YOUR OPINION is all that matters!!) it was a futile attempt, it is obstruction.

Absolutely no version of softabll I know about has this as a wreck, or "no call".

It's a HTBT play....Steve sums it up best, and heed his words....when JUDGEMENT is involved YOUR opinion is all that matters.

Usually, but I don't think there is a definitive yes.

Its not nit picking, its in the rule book
 

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.

I believe, if you read the highlighted above, the OP made it clear whether this should be OBS or INT. OBS.

I take exception to the significance of the underlined portion. The IFF requires ordinary effort, but not protection for fielding a batted ball. Even if this would have required the absolute limit of F6's ability, if you judge she could have made the play, you must call this INT, not OBS.

Now, I do agree it sounds like OBS. I also think it is important that we not focus on ordinary effort when we protect a fielder.

Thanks everyone. It was my first game of the year and I made no call. Later I thought that was an error on my part. Per your input there should have been a call, my error. Thanks for your help!:eek:

I'm not sure I understand why she'd have to be able to make the play. If the ball hits the ground before she gets there, she's going to field it anyway, no? To prevent the runner from going home?
________
LaCremo

If theres a call, and you dont call it, and everyone is happy.. was there really a call? ;)

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.