Mike,

OC overhears that conversation and politely contributes from the dugout:

"Blue, the Rule Supplements, which are given to clarify any grey areas, state specifically that the fielder must be waiting to apply a tag! This doesn't contradict the rule, only clarifies it for this precise situation."

I mentioned that rule above, and why I did not think it applied here. If you think it does, please discuss.

We don't always agree... but we sure do here.

This is how my conversation would differ.

Actually, it doesn't quite say that (the underlined part).

What it does say is that if the fielder is waiting to apply a tag, the runner must be called out. IOW, the "must" is on the umpire, not on the fielder.

Further, later in the RS it at least implies that the "waiting to apply a tag" is not a requirement with the clarification that if the flight of a thrown ball draws the fielder into the path of the runner, it is not a crash. A fielder being drawing into the path of the runner by an errant throw is not waiting to apply a tag, either, so if waiting to apply a tag was a black and white requirement, this clarification would be unnecessary.

Mike's OP scenario has me visualizing a quickly occurring sequence of bobble, control, crash. Hence (apart from a technical rules discussion), this situation could just as easily be ruled interfering with the fielder attempting to field the batted ball.

Regardless, the way I look at it is RS's can never contradict the rule, but if they do, the contradictory part should be ignored (ref: the RS on Obstruction a few years ago that stated that blocking a base without the ball was obstruction, leaving out the small part about the runner actually being impeded). Secondly, the RS on interference in general (#33) makes it reasonably clear that the fielder in the continuous process of fielding the batted ball to attempting a play is protected.

Dakota,

I was just envision a continuing conversation, playing devil's advocate if you will.
FWIW, I take pretty much everything Mike says as bible, and the basis of my personal interpretations.

Fair enough. I've been known to do that from time to time myself! ;)

I saw the OP as still in the process of fielding a batted ball and "there were multiple opportunities to record an out".

Well, you can bullshit as much as you like, but it doesn't become a good umpire. And the OP clearly states "knocked" down, so that is a bit more than contacted.

What grey area? Rule seem quite clear and straight forward. Another situation where umpires are going out of their way to protect a player who hasn't earned it.

Meanwhile, three damn pages and not one of you have checked the rule, as requested.

Envisioning this at game speed, I have INT, R3 out, all runners back, BR on 1st.

The fact that F4 didn't move forward or backward in the fielding of the ball leads me to believe R3 was going to plow into her whether she fielded it cleanly or not.

So I have a flagrant act, and an EJ.

(Cue the Jeopardy music)

That is what I presented. I made a point of stating that the fielder did not move solely for the purpose of eliminating the "what iffing" this to death. Apparently, more credit was given than due.

However, the real point was to get someone to look at the damn rule which has been changed to include the runner closest to home being ruled out. I don't know whether this change was an error in compilation or someone just thought it was a better idea to rule out another runner. I'm willing to bet that someone is just assuming the runner causing the collision has been retired prior to it which as demonstrated in this thread is not necessarily true.

And I would have seen that, had the rulebook PDF on my work computer been newer than 2009.

I truly don't appreciate you calling my explanation of what I've been told the rule is meant to cover, "Bullshit". That's beneath you.

Not one of us? Didn't you just quote me discussing that rule? Didn't I mention that particular rule very early in this conversation? Didn't I invite you, specifically, to explain to us why you would apply that specific rule to this case?

What's with the belligerence on this thread, sir?

Having participated in a good many back-and-forth (ahem) discussions with Mike over the years, I think I can safely say you are not being fair to Mike here. :D

Aha! I knew there had to be something behind you posting that situation!

Unfortunately, I don't have a 2015 book, only a 2014, so your repeated insistence on reading the rule left me a bit mystified.