Tcow #2
 

TCOW #2

Runners on 1st and 2nd.
Grounder off F5 glove to F6 about 10 feet from 3rd.

F6 fields ball just about in line from 2nd to 3rd;
and is immediately run into hard and knocked down by R1,
ball comes loose to ground.

Runner gets up, gets to 3rd before F6 can make a play.

Is there possible INT here? If so, why (your criteria)?

Please start with ASA! Differences later.

Not unless the umpire judges R1's act to be intentional.

ASA 8.7.J.4

I checked on your cite and was going to slightly disagree with you probably based on us reading the play a little differently. It seems to me that once the F6 gloved the ball 8.7.4.J no longer applies. She's not fielding it after she controls it.
But other than crashing into the fielder, I can't find the rule that actually makes it illegal to interfere with a player attempting to complete a force or tag a runner. So it seems you could have 8.7.Q here, but that seems wrong since the runner didn't really have time to avoid the crash. If a runner were to grab the arm of the fielder to prevent a tag, would we really lack a rule to call the runner out?

I would agree that there is nothing if the contact is not intentional. With that said, I find it hard to say that when a player is "run into hard" that the contact is not intentional. I guess it would be a HTBT situations to determine if the contact is intentional or not.

Now, onto the different rules thing. The NFHS rule is similar. The only way to declare the runner out would be on 8-6-13 or 8-6-14. Depending on the actual situation the contact would be deemed intentional and thus 8-6-13 would be applied. An umpire could also deem the contact malcious in either rule code would be an out.

One rule from the ASA book to look at also is 8-7-Q.

Again, this really is a HTBT situation to see what rule would be applied.

If there's no intent to interfere, this could happen quite easily. Two opposing players moving as fast as they can trying to get to nearly the same spot - not hard to imagine at all.

I agree, but the argument that will first come up will be interference and this is the rule that will negate that argument.

Obviously, the fielder who most likely receives the protection would be F5 since F5 is the first to get the glove on it and rule doesn't allow for an and/or protection.

That can only leave you with an unsportsmanlike conduct ruling and I don't see that. You cannot expect the player to run a slalom course as defenders each step up to field the loose ball. We would have to see it, but if I'm the runner, I know F6 isn't allowed to obstruct me so I'm heading toward 3B. If F5 gets me, he gets me, then all of a sudden F6 steps into what is most likely the base path and fields the deflected ball?

Unless I see something from the runner indicating it could have been avoided or softened through a timely effort, I've got a "no call".

I don't think it would be different in NFHS

When I think "run into hard" I think of contact initiated by one person against another. I completely understand how a hard collision could occur in a situation like this, BUT then you do run into the question of illegal contact because in the OP the defensive player does have possession of the ball at the time contact is made.

I personally would have to see the entire play to make a decision on how to call it.

Kind of afraid to ask... but here goes:

We're talking about a play without intent... so what exactly are you talking about here with "illegal contact because the defensive player has possession of the ball"???

You're muddying the waters when it comes to contact between a runner and a fielder who has possession of the ball.

We've already covered that, since this was a deflected batted ball, ASA 8.7.J.4 applies when it comes to interference. And for that to happen, the runner must show clear intent that she meant to interfere.

ASA 8.7.Q and RS 13 talk about crashes. For that to happen, a fielder has to have possession of the ball and be waiting to apply a tag on the runner. As described, the runner ran into the fielder almost simultaneously when the fielder fielded the ball. So this rule doesn't apply. In fact, the play almost sounds more like what is covered by RS 13G, when a runner, fielder, and ball arrive almost at the same time, which is considered incidental contact.

So I'm at a loss when you feel that it is illegal for a runner to run into a fielder who just gains possession of the ball. There's nothing illegal about it in this particular play.