ASA Interference?

[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.

[MD Longhorn]

The deflected ball rule kind of implies that it's NOT interference unless the runner does something intentional to interfere. I think we can throw that one out here.

The issue is that the rules protect a fielder while she's fielding a ball. The rules protect a fielder while she's throwing a ball. And the rules prevent a runner from interfering with the actual throw.

The fielder in the OP is doing none of these things.

You ask, "Where does it state that if the fielder does not field the ball perfectly that the protection disappears?" It does not state that. But the rules do not protect a fielder who has already fielded a ball... unless they are throwing that ball.

The runner in the OP has not broken any of the 4 parts of the interference rule.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

...But the rules do not protect a fielder who has already fielded a ball... unless they are throwing that ball...

Runners on 2nd and 3rd. Infield ground ball fielded by F6, who is standing there checking R1 to hold her up from scoring and has not started any throwing motion anywhere. R2 runs into her, distracting / disrupting her enough that R1 scores, R2 is safe on 3rd, and BR is safe on 1st.

You got nothin'?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Has anyone actually read 8.7.Q?

[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).