ASA Interference?
 

Bases juiced, no outs.

Ground ball to F4 who bobbles, but gains possession of the ball prior to R3 running into and knocking her down. No tag was made, but all runners reached their next base safely before the defender could recover and make a play?

For the sake of this discussion:

• there was no attempt by R3 to avoid the F4 who did not step forward or backward while gaining possession of the ball
• No runner reached the next base prior to the collision
• At the time of the collision, there were multiple opportunities to record an out

Is this interference? What is the result of the play?

Do you mean F5 ?, anyway lead runner it seems is out (the one who interfered), all others return unless forced to advance as B/R becomes a runner.

R3 in this case is the runner from first base. She ran into F4 as she was heading to second.

INT, R3 is out, R1 & R2 return to TOP, BR awarded 1st.
If ITUJ, R3 was deliberately preventing a DP, BR also out.

No.No.No.

Absent intent... this is nothing.

Which INT rule, exactly, are you guys using to rule interference here?

Which ASA interference rule that requires intent are you using to say this is nothing?

I'm saying this is not interference at all. Again, which rule would you say she broke here?

If, however, the runner ran into a fielder that already had the ball with the intent of preventing a double play, we have something different.

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.

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).

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.

Except by tradition! :)

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

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).

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.

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.

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'?

Has anyone actually read 8.7.Q?

I don't do ASA. Please share.

Crash. Plan and simple. No intent needed. A runner cannot run into a fielder in possession of the ball. In this scenario this is only an out.

The fielder has the ball, and the runner remains upright and runs into her, this is an out for interference. All applicable rules apply to other runners as well.

What about this same play in NFHS? To me this is a more complex argument in the NFHS book than it is in ASA. What rule would apply to the NFHS game on the same situation?

Don't care, not the point of the question

It's not that plain and simple. By RS #13, a crash involves a fielder who has the ball and is waiting to apply a tag. In this scenario, the fielder was not attempting to tag the runner, so I don't believe you can call this a crash. If TPTB want to rule this an out (as well as the alternative scenario that Tom mentioned with a runner running into a fielder who has the ball and is looking at another runner to freeze him/her near the base before turning and throwing to retire the BR at first), they should modify RS #13 so that it doesn't sound like crash interference only applies when a fielder is waiting to tag the oncoming runner.

While thank you for your opinion, now if anyone else who isn't going to be that guy, would like to discuss it, feel free.

Or you can start your own thread for NFHS scenario and ruling.

I'll stick with the rule (which apparently no one wants to read as requested) over a RS any day. If you want to live by the RS, you would be condoning collisions as noted in this scenario without penalty.

Coach: Blue, that runner just barreled over my player.
Umpire: Yep.
Coach: But she had the ball.
Umpire: Yep.
Coach: Rule 8.7.Q clearly states the runner cannot do that.
Umpire: Yep, but the RS says it is okay if the defender is not attempting to tag that runner, so all is good here, coach.

Yeah, I dare you to have that conversation :)

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.

I didn't. I was referring to your alteration of the discussion.

I don't like wasting teaching moments. The rule was changed and as much as 8.7.Q has been mentioned on other threads on this and other boards, not once have I seen this change mentioned. So I decided to push a few buttons to get a conversation about it going. I went out of my way to lock the scenario so tight there was no room for multiple conclusions. Yet, there were and achieved by basically ignoring the parameters of the play to suit a predetermined response.

It is a frustration of many in clinics, schools and social media outlets. How can anyone know what is or is not when there is so much static and people looking for loopholes in a rule that the original question is contorted almost to the point of obliteration?

You mean you didn't rush out and buy the app for your phone? :)

P.S., While I understand they want to sell books and apps, a non-published change can throw a lot of people off. Then again, maybe this was a watermark to see who was copying it :)

For the record, I wasn't looking for a loophole to allow the runner to be free of any interference call here. He/she needs to be ruled out, and I was looking for something to support it.

As for 8-7-Q, I did want to use that, but I always believed (perhaps wrongly) that this specific rule was meant to deal with the situation that RS#13 expands upon, and that's when the fielder is waiting to make a tag. That's why I was looking for some alternative involving a deflected ball.

Heh! No. :)

Manny, that is the point. The rule DOES support it.

AFA the effect, since I'm being told the app version does not include this change, I would have to agree with others that this is an editorial error. That being the case, it has been two months since the first rules clarification for 2015 has been published. By this time last year, there were already four published and I'm sort of surprised it has not been addressed by now