ASA Interference?

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Dakota

I actually haven't answered Mike's question (yet). I was responding to you because you said it is nothing unless there was intent. I was wondering how you came to that.

Fair enough.

There is only one possible rule this player may have broken, and you don't generally see it called when a player gets the ball immediately before contact... 8-7-Q (which is NOT part of the interference rule) applies if a runner remains upright and crashes into a fielder that has the ball - but it generally meant to be used when the fielder clearly had possession of the ball and the runner knew it... but tried to knock them over. I wouldn't use this rule here... but might not argue with a partner who did (at least, not until post-game ) The rule doesn't SAY intentionally... but in any rules discussions I've had at camps or clinics, "crashes" generally implies some intent on the runner's part.

[Dakota]

If presented with this situation live on the field, I have no doubt I would have ruled as Cecil stated, and the rule would be 8-7-J-1.

However, it is usually true that when Mike posts a situation, there is something requiring a bit more thought, and since this IS a rules discussion board, you do bring up a good point.

Nonetheless, I doubt the rules writers intended to create an unprotected gap between "attempting to field a batted ball" (J-1) and "attempting to throw the ball" (J-2).

[jmkupka]

I think the gap presented itself when she bobbled, then recovered the ball, making it no longer a case of fielding a batted ball. And since contact happened right after the recovery, she wasn't yet in the act of throwing either.

Am I warm?

Does the "step and a reach" aspect not enter into this situation?

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by jmkupka

I think the gap presented itself when she bobbled, then recovered the ball, making it no longer a case of fielding a batted ball. And since contact happened right after the recovery, she wasn't yet in the act of throwing either.

Am I warm?

Does the "step and a reach" aspect not enter into this situation?

The "step and reach" criterion applies to a fielder making an initial play under FED rules, and to a fielder who knocks a batted ball in front of her under NCAA rules. There is no "step and reach" that I'm aware of in ASA play.

What's interesting here is rule 8-7-J-4, where a runner who intentionally interferes with a defensive player having the opportunity to make an out with a deflected batted ball is still ruled out. Does this situation involve a deflected batted ball? And does the fact that Mike said R3 made no attempt to avoid imply intent? This would be the only way I can see to rule interference by ASA rule.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by Manny A

...There is no "step and reach" that I'm aware of in ASA play...

Except by tradition!

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by Manny A

The "step and reach" criterion applies to a fielder making an initial play under FED rules, and to a fielder who knocks a batted ball in front of her under NCAA rules. There is no "step and reach" that I'm aware of in ASA play.

What's interesting here is rule 8-7-J-4, where a runner who intentionally interferes with a defensive player having the opportunity to make an out with a deflected batted ball is still ruled out. Does this situation involve a deflected batted ball? And does the fact that Mike said R3 made no attempt to avoid imply intent? This would be the only way I can see to rule interference by ASA rule.

Ding, ding, ding, IMO. The cited rule doesn't stipulate deflected by or from another player!!

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

Ding, ding, ding, IMO. The cited rule doesn't stipulate deflected by or from another player!!

True, but I don't see intent (implied or actual) in the OP.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

True, but I don't see intent (implied or actual) in the OP.

In my view, the reason intent remains in the deflected ball rule is to account for the unpredictable nature of where a deflected ball will go.

That does not apply here.

Where does it state that if the fielder does not field the ball perfectly that the protection disappears? The only impact on the runner is it took the fielder a bit longer than it otherwise would have to glove the ball securely. The fielder was there in one spot all along. The runner merely chose to not alter her path.

It seems to me you either apply the fielding a batted ball rule or if you choose to apply the deflected ball rule, the fact that the runner made no attempt to avoid the fielder is enough to rule intent.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by Manny A

...What's interesting here is rule 8-7-J-4, where a runner who intentionally interferes with a defensive player having the opportunity to make an out with a deflected batted ball is still ruled out. Does this situation involve a deflected batted ball? And does the fact that Mike said R3 made no attempt to avoid imply intent? This would be the only way I can see to rule interference by ASA rule.

I wouldn't see this as a deflected ball. Note the OP specifically says F4 did not step forward or backward, so there was nothing unanticipatable about the fielder's movements (like there could be with a deflected ball).