Yet another INT/OBS question

[sbatten]

Hi, all -- I'm an inexperienced ASA slow pitch umpire looking for a second opinion on an adult rec game I called yesterday.

Two outs, R1 on 2B, R2 on 1B. Batter hits a grounder up the middle, actually a little to the left side of the pitcher's circle, and F1 makes a stab for it, but the ball continues through (untouched).

R1 and F6 then collide as F6 is preparing to pick up the grounder. Ball bounces off F6 and rolls to the side.

I immediately called interference on R1 for the third out of the inning.

R1 argued that since F1 had attempted to make a play on the ball, R1 should be given a clear path to 3B and F6 should not have been in his way. R1's argument, as I understand it, was that he didn't feel interference applied because F6 was not making an attempt to field the ball at the time of the collision, F1 was.

I explained to R1 that I didn't see F1 touch the ball -- which might have changed how I ruled on the collision (it did not look like intentional contact on R1's part). Absent any deflection, I explained, R1 had to give F6 a chance to field the ball.

Comments? It was a friendly game and while R1 was certain he was right, nobody broke any blood vessels in their brain arguing over it. I'm just looking for a more experienced point of view -- I know most INT/OBS calls are HTBT, but could I have ruled that the runner was protected (not the fielder) in this case, by virtue of his impression that R1 was fielding the ball?

And a hypothetical scenario (pretty much unrelated to the original question) -- if F1 had successfully picked up the grounder, then R1 and F6 collided, and F1 threw to F5 for an apparent force out, would you agree that I would be justified in awarding R1 third base? I've called obstruction a handful of times but usually when runners are advancing on base hits; I've never had to deal with it on a play in the infield.

Scott

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by sbatten

Hi, all -- I'm an inexperienced ASA slow pitch umpire looking for a second opinion on an adult rec game I called yesterday.

Two outs, R1 on 2B, R2 on 1B. Batter hits a grounder up the middle, actually a little to the left side of the pitcher's circle, and F1 makes a stab for it, but the ball continues through (untouched).

You had a pitcher's circle in a SP game? You have some strange local rule?

R1 and F6 then collide as F6 is preparing to pick up the grounder. Ball bounces off F6 and rolls to the side.

I immediately called interference on R1 for the third out of the inning.

R1 argued that since F1 had attempted to make a play on the ball, R1 should be given a clear path to 3B and F6 should not have been in his way. R1's argument, as I understand it, was that he didn't feel interference applied because F6 was not making an attempt to field the ball at the time of the collision, F1 was.

R1 is wrong. If, IYJ, F6 had the opportunity to make an out, it is INT. 8.7.J.1

I explained to R1 that I didn't see F1 touch the ball -- which might have changed how I ruled on the collision (it did not look like intentional contact on R1's part). Absent any deflection, I explained, R1 had to give F6 a chance to field the ball.

Comments? It was a friendly game and while R1 was certain he was right, nobody broke any blood vessels in their brain arguing over it. I'm just looking for a more experienced point of view -- I know most INT/OBS calls are HTBT, but could I have ruled that the runner was protected (not the fielder) in this case, by virtue of his impression that R1 was fielding the ball?

If R1 fielded the ball, that is definitely INT!

And a hypothetical scenario (pretty much unrelated to the original question) -- if F1 had successfully picked up the grounder, then R1 and F6 collided, and F1 threw to F5 for an apparent force out, would you agree that I would be justified in awarding R1 third base? I've called obstruction a handful of times but usually when runners are advancing on base hits; I've never had to deal with it on a play in the infield.

Scott

It is OBS and you must place the runner someplace. Seems to me that 3B is the only open base.

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by sbatten

R1 argued that since F1 had attempted to make a play on the ball, R1 should be given a clear path to 3B and F6 should not have been in his way. R1's argument, as I understand it, was that he didn't feel interference applied because F6 was not making an attempt to field the ball at the time of the collision, F1 was.

I'm getting hung up on this part here... At the time of the collision, where was the ball? Was it by F1, or F6?

My thought on this is that if F6 was nowhere near the ball, then he was not in the act of fielding a batted ball. The way I'm picturing it was that at the time of the collision, the ball was still a second or two away from F6.

If, in your judgment, F6 was just about to field the ball, then I have no problem whatsoever with your call. But if the ball still had a ways to go and F6 was not in the act of fielding the batted ball, then I'd have OBS.

Could you give some more details? It's sounding like a HTBT (had to be there) kind of a call.

R1 was definitely incorrect in saying that because F1 had attempted to make a play, a clear path must be given. That's just a bunch of silliness, but hey... What do you expect?

You're asking the question on the right forum. I haven't seen you before, so welcome!

I also appreciate the fact that you've got your terminology straight. Makes a good impression upon this board.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by sbatten

...F1 makes a stab for it, but the ball continues through (untouched).

R1 and F6 then collide as F6 is preparing to pick up the grounder. Ball bounces off F6 and rolls to the side....

...R1's argument, as I understand it, was that he didn't feel interference applied because F6 was not making an attempt to field the ball at the time of the collision, F1 was....

Dave,

I saw the same contradiction you did, but it seems to me that as Scott (the OP) saw the play, F6 was in the act of fielding the ball, and the argument that he was not was being made by the runner.

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Dave,

I saw the same contradiction you did, but it seems to me that as Scott (the OP) saw the play, F6 was in the act of fielding the ball, and the argument that he was not was being made by the runner.

Right... I'm just seeing if there's any truth to it. Probably not, but let's just see.

[Andy]

Scott - sometimes we tend to over analyze some plays posted on this board.

From what I read and envision the play described, you made the right call.

You are also correct in your assessment of the secondary question.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by Andy

Scott - sometimes we tend to over analyze some plays posted on this board. ...

Sometimes???

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Sometimes???

Let's see... Carry the 4... Yes, sometimes.

[steveshane67]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

It is OBS and you must place the runner someplace. Seems to me that 3B is the only open base.

I was re-reading the obstruction section and actually became more confused.

Lets say no one on, BR hits a 1 hopper to LF, who catches it on the hop and throws to 2B right away, the BR takes a "big turn" past first and bumps into the firstbaseman. Now if the runner had actually tried for 2nd they would have been out by a mile, whats the award, if any, here?

Lets say 1st and 2nd, 1 out, IF is playing in. GB to the 3B, who fields it and touches 3rd, but the SS never moved out of the basepath and the runner runs into him, but had 0 chance of ever making it to 3rd safely, whats the award, if any, here?

Rule 8-5-B

Section 5. RUNNERS ARE ENTITLED TO ADVANCE WITHOUT LIABILITY TO BE
PUT OUT.
When a fielder not in possession of the ball or not in the act of fielding a
batted ball, obstructs the progress of a runner or batter-runner.

Rule 8-5-B-2

If the obstructed runner is put out prior to reaching the base which would
have been reached had there not been obstruction,
EFFECT: A dead ball is called and the obstructed runner and all other
runners shall be awarded the base or bases which would have been
reached, in the umpire’s judgment, had there not been obstruction.

in either sit I described, neither runner would have made it to the next base if there was no obstruction. 8-5-B-2 seems to contradict 8-5-B

[CecilOne]

We have to start by separating "base would have reached" from "never out between the bases where OBS".
When it is a "never out" situation, and all previous bases are occupied, then the next base is the only possibility. Hence: "
And a hypothetical scenario (pretty much unrelated to the original question) -- if F1 had successfully picked up the grounder, then R1 and F6 collided, and F1 threw to F5 for an apparent force out, would you agree that I would be justified in awarding R1 third base? I've called obstruction a handful of times but usually when runners are advancing on base hits; I've never had to deal with it on a play in the infield.

Scott

It is OBS and you must place the runner someplace. Seems to me that 3B is the only open base. "

[sbatten]

Thanks to everyone for the feedback!