Interference?

[Zepp]

Saw this play on Sportscenter (Padres vs Giants game on 8/13/10) the other day and it got me thinking about if this same play were in an ASA softball game and what the appropriate call would be.

Umps sure call on moot protest was right | MLB.com: News

Towards the end of the video are some better angles on the play and also their first mention of a "deflected ball."

The MLB rule states nothing about a deflected ball scenario unlike ASA were the interference has to be intentional by the runner after a deflected batted ball. (ASA Rule 8-7-J-4)

Just looking for some opinions (ASA ruleset) on whether it's a
1) no call (play on)
2) obstruction (delayed dead ball signal given, protect runner to 2nd base)
3) interference (dead ball - runner is out)

[KJUmp]

Originally Posted by Zepp

Saw this play on Sportscenter (Padres vs Giants game on 8/13/10) the other day and it got me thinking about if this same play were in an ASA softball game and what the appropriate call would be.

Umps sure call on moot protest was right | MLB.com: News

Towards the end of the video are some better angles on the play and also their first mention of a "deflected ball."

The MLB rule states nothing about a deflected ball scenario unlike ASA were the interference has to be intentional by the runner after a deflected batted ball. (ASA Rule 8-7-J-4)

Just looking for some opinions (ASA ruleset) on whether it's a
1) no call (play on)
2) obstruction (delayed dead ball signal given until runner reaches 2nd)
3) interference (dead ball - runner is out)

How could there possibly have been obstruction on that play?

[MD Longhorn]

And please don't hold your arm out until they reach second. Mechanically wrong and you look silly.

[Zepp]

Is a deflected batted ball treated the same as a batted ball?
I would have to say no.

If they were the same then why have it as a separate rule under the interference section (rule 8-7-J)
and not include it with a batted ball in the obstruction rule (8-5-B-4)

Rule 8-5-B-4 - When a runner, while advancing or returning to a base
a) is obstructed by a fielder who neither has the ball or
b) is attempting to field a batted or thrown ball or
c) when a fielder fakes a tag w/o the ball

Therefore, the fielder does not have possession of the ball, is not fielding a batted ball (deflected - yes, batted - no) and is hindering the progress of the runner. Obstruction?

[MD Longhorn]

I can't run the video ... who did it deflect off of?

[Zepp]

Pitcher

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Zepp

Pitcher

Kind of changes everything, doesn't it?

Interference.

[Zepp]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Kind of changes everything, doesn't it?

Interference.

ASA Rule citation to back that up?

[MD Longhorn]

Sorry - got my alphabet soups mixed up there. Not enough coffee yet today. ASA, the contact must be intentional on a deflected ball. NFHS, the pitcher is excluded from that. My bad - yes, this is not interference.

As to obstruction, again, I can't see the video. If the fielder cause the runner to alter their path without possession of the ball, you would have obstruction. HTBT, so not seeing the video until I get home, I plead the 5th.

Just don't hold that arm up until they reach 2nd!!!

[KJUmp]

Originally Posted by Zepp

Is a deflected batted ball treated the same as a batted ball?
I would have to say no.

If they were the same then why have it as a separate rule under the interference section (rule 8-7-J)
and not include it with a batted ball in the obstruction rule (8-5-B-4)

Rule 8-5-B-4 - When a runner, while advancing or returning to a base
a) is obstructed by a fielder who neither has the ball or
b) is attempting to field a batted or thrown ball or
c) when a fielder fakes a tag w/o the ball

Therefore, the fielder does not have possession of the ball, is not fielding a batted ball (deflected - yes, batted - no) and is hindering the progress of the runner. Obstruction?

So as the umpire you're going to make an obstruction call on that play, based on a strict literal interpretation of the rule, and with no regard for what you saw take place on the video of the play?

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by KJUmp

So as the umpire you're going to make an obstruction call on that play, based on a strict literal interpretation of the rule, and with no regard for what you saw take place on the video of the play?

KJ, I can't see it - what happened in the video, and what makes you say it's not OBS?

[Andy]

The ball was deflected by the pitcher, so any interference has to be intentional. i did not see anything intentional on the part of the runner.

Under ASA rules, I have obstruction on the second baseman (and I am putting my arm out immediately).

Under NFHS rules, I do have an interference call as F4 is in the process of making the "initial play". The deflection of the ball by the pitcher is a moot point for this ruleset.

[CecilOne]

The video looks like definite hindrance, by whom is just a question of which rule as Andy and others said. If deflection off the pitcher overides "fielding a batted ball", then it looks like OBS. If not, it looks like INT. Then, whether intent matters in one rule set or the other affects the call and of course whether the umpire judges it intentional.

[KJUmp]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

KJ, I can't see it - what happened in the video, and what makes you say it's not OBS?

mb...
Anyway you can run it by going directly to the Padres team site thru the MLB website? It's there, click on "More News" on the Padre site and you'll see the headline.
KJ

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by KJUmp

mb...
Anyway you can run it by going directly to the Padres team site thru the MLB website? It's there, click on "More News" on the Padre site and you'll see the headline.
KJ

Those are all simply blocked here at work. I have to wait until I get home.