This play happened 2 weeks ago in a hotly contested NCAA D1 conference game. Here is the play, tell me what you think. BTW, I was not assigned to this game(Thank God!!!!) and already know the official ruling.

Runner @1, Batter lays down a bunt up the 1st base line. The 1st baseperson, breaks on the ball, then thinking it may go foul(assumed) backs off and takes a step into foul territory where there is contact with the batterrunner. The 2nd Baseperson is covering 1st.

What is the call???? Obstruction or Interference.

Now we have a protest.(That one is easy!).

Use ASA, NCAA or Fed Rulebooks.

OK...I'll go first...

Since defense was not making a play on the ball (backed off and stepped into foul territory), I rule obstruction on defense (provided runner was still in her base path).

How did I score?

Speaking ASA - obstruction. ASA 8-5-B and ASA 8-7-J.

Take the interference rule first. For the BR to be guilty of interference, she must have interfered with a <font color=blue>fielder attempting to field a fair batted ball</font>. The fielder was not attempting to field anything, even if the ball eventually ended up fair.

For obstruction, the <font color=blue>fielder ... not in the act of fielding a batted ball...</font> impeded the progress of the batter-runner.

Once F3 pulled up, she was not longer in the act of fielding the batted ball, so she was no longer protected, so she must yield to the batter-runner, so there was obstruction.

I assume after awhile, you will tell us how it was ruled on the field, and how the protest turned out.

Sitting here at the computer and reading the description, my first thought would be obstruction, providing the ball remained fair.

The original post never provided the final disposition of the batted ball. Obstruction is a delayed dead ball. If the ball was declared foul, we have a strike added to the count and the batter returned to the plate. No obstruction.

I also think this would be a difficult call imagining it in real time on the field. What was the timing between when the fielder stopped playing the ball and the contact with the BR? If it was a fraction of a second and the ball was still fair, I can certainly see an umpire ruling interference.

I am also curious as to the call on the field, what was protested and the outcome.

Good point. And also correct. Why didn't I think of that!http://www.stopstart.freeserve.co.uk/smilie/ugh.gif

ASA & Fed would be obstruction, but I often fear some of the NFCA, er....I mean, NCAA rules because of the overwhelming coach's input used.

BTW, even if the ball goes foul, it is still obstruction, it's just that there is no award. Remember, there is no guarantee of a free base, just what the result would have been had the obstruction not occured. In this case, it would be a strike on the batter (if 3rd in SP, batter out).

Pray the ball goes foul
 

This is surely a Had To Be There play.

They way you have presented the scenario it appears that obstruction is the correct call - abandonment by F3 to make a play and contact with the runner AS SEPARATE events.

Envisioning how this scenario could have developed though... perhaps F3 pulled off because the Batter-Runner was about to collide with the fielder ==> interference is a possibility.

I'm still hoping the ball went foul.... how long can we wait for it to get foul? ...isn't it foul yet? :)

("pray the ball goes foul" ... hilarious ... that one's going to be running through my mind forever now !!)


anyway, you say the defense " ...thinking it may go foul(assumed) backs off ...", so it was still fair at collision time the way i envision it from what you've told us so far

if that's the case, i call obstruction ... no question


((( please call it fair or foul soon !!! )))


bobbrix

It ended up a fair ball. :)

not in the act of fielding a batted ball
 

Per Dakota (my underline), "For obstruction, the fielder ... not in the act of fielding a batted ball... impeded the progress of the batter-runner" is the point; although I guess I should check the NCAA book for its wording. And of course, the umpire has to judge that F# was "not in the act of fielding a batted ball".

OK, kellerumps....

We've waited a couple of days and given opinions.

Tell us what happened!!!

(please) :)

Well the umpires(all 3) ruled Obstruction and the assigner for the conference(who is on the the national NCAA committee) just happened to be at the game and agreed(That was my official ruling).

The protest was denied because you can not protest obstruction/interference. There is alot of "Backstory" here(regarding the protesting team) that I will not bore you all with. Suffice it to say that it was a miserable experience for all. It's one of those stories that makes you thank your lucky stars that you were not apart of.

However, we just got done working a series with another umpire involved and he said that a "Videotape" has surfaced and was being reviewed by the NCAA. Another umpire involved was going to receive a copy of the video this weekend. I will be talking to him tommorrow about another unrelated issue that has cropped up. Will let you know how the video turns out.

The only alternative I see is DTTB's "perhaps F3 pulled off because the Batter-Runner was about to collide with the fielder ==> interference ", but a tough judgement to make and the ball had to still be fair.

By the way, I learned something about softball last night, from one of the teams:
"If they keep scoring runs, we have to score more." :D
This was in a game that needed an error limit instead of a home run limit.