Interference
 

A friend brought me this one. Please answer for all codes...

IFF hit to F6, who glances away right as the ball hits her glove - ball pops out, F6 tries to grab barehanded and slaps the ball into the air. R1 from 2nd starts running and is now in the vicinity of F6.

At what point does F6 lose protection from being interfered with and risk obstruction by being in R1's path? Does this change if this is not an IFF and we have only R1 on 2nd (the difference being that in the first case, BR is already out and the catch may not really be a "play" - where in the 2nd it definitely is).

a "step and a reach"

I really don't understand your last paragraph. Even IFFs are fair batted balls and the fielder has full protection to field that ball. As long as she is trying to field that ball, and juggling is part of that, the runner can't interfere with her fielding the ball. Now when the ball gets on the ground and is a step and a reach away we start judging the possibility of obstruction.

Rita

ASA does not use the term "step and a reach", so I would leave it to the judgement of the umpire if the fielder was still in the process of fielding a batted ball or chasing down a ball that got away from her. Now, I do think that a "step and a reach" might certainly be a criteria used to help the umpire judge the situation.

If in your judgement, the fielder is no longer in the process of fielding the ball and has lost her protection and can be called for obstructing the runner. I would tend to keep the fielder on a shorter leash (maybe just a reach) on a play such as this as she was the one who goofed up in the first place.

I believe that NFHS does use the language "step and a reach".......so that is the criteria I would use.

Joel

Fielding a batted ball is its own thing; it does not have to otherwise be a "play" in the definitional sense. The IFF is irrelevant to the fielder's protection while trying to field the batted ball. As long as she is in the act of attempting to field the batted ball, she is not obstructing and the runner may not interfere. While "step and reach" was recently codified by NFHS, it has been a informal standard for a long time.

Which reminds me of a play I heard about. The ball was batted toward the SS and because she waited and did not charge/reach etc.; she was called for OBS when the runner bumped into her.

You "heard about"? or is it like in Analyze This when Robt DeNiro walks into Billy Crystal's office and wanted to talk about "a friend of his"? :eek:

Which one, Smith or Wesson?

No cover up, UBS. Another ump described calling this in a game he umped. OK, movie reviews over, any play comments.

I know you hate this Cecil, but HTBT to see it to rule defineitively.

The umpire would have to judge if F6 is waiting for the ball to come to her or is just standing there trying to be in the runners way before she starts to field the batted ball.

I have seen shortstops stick their glove hand out so that a runner will hit it running past, then F6 fields the ball and wants an interference call.....nope....F6 is not in the act of fielding a batted ball if they can stick their glove out to contact the runner and still have time to field the ball.

I did make a call similar to your situation a few years back.

One out, no runners, F2 drops Strike 3. Ball is rolling down the first baseline, F2 jumps out after the ball, B/R doesn't realize she can run for a second, then takes off for first. F2 then uses her butt to "block" the B/R and get her to change direction, then picks up the ball and throws to first.

I call OBS on F2 and award first base. I felt F2 initiated the contact and was not fielding a batted ball (obviously), but, at the time of the contact, she was not playing the dropped third strike either.

Good thought about intent and the F2 example does look deliberate, which would make a difference.

No problem with HTBT when the alternatives are explained like that.

I could conceivably see waiving the interference ... but do you really have obstruction - even in the case you mention?