pitcher and batter collide on 1st base line

[ALStripes17]

Tough to give benefit of the doubt to the runner when the runner changes his line to 1st base. That's quite a change of lane he runs

[Replacematt]

Watched this live. I will say great call. F1 was no longer fielding the ball, B1 from I saw didn't do anything, malicious (even though he ended up knocking two players over). Obstruction.

At least if it was in any game I am working under OBR. (I am not familiar with NCAA)

 

If it is within the fielder's immediate reach, he's still fielding it. MLBUM 6.23. This is INT in OBR.

[Dean]

Just watching the video - the BR is following the line and then when the pitcher comes to field the ball, the BR runs inside the line as to initiate the contact.  I understand F3's gripe.

[JaxRolo]

 

 

Sorry, I've got INT all day long and I'm not so sure I don't have MC as well. Note the clip is in slow motion. AT normal speed it would be hard for the runner to even know if F1 fielded the ball or not. He ran a direct line right into him while fielding the ball...rather violently I might add.

The runner also veered inside the lane to make the contact.

 

 

 

Just watching the video - the BR is following the line and then when the pitcher comes to field the ball, the BR runs inside the line as to initiate the contact.  I understand F3's gripe.

 

 

^^this^^

Runner had a clear path to the base and veered left to make contact.

[Mad Mike]

In FED, the BR would be called out under 8-4-1(g). The batter-runner is out when: (g) he runs outside the three-foot running lane (last half of the distance from home plate to first base), while the ball is being fielded or thrown to first base, or 1. this infraction is ignored if it is to avoid a fielder who is attempting to field the batted ball or if the act does not interfere with a fielder or a throw. 2. The batter runner is considered outside the running lane lines if either foot is outside either line.

 

I agree with the above posters, the BR had a clear line to the base and veered to the left to initiate the contact. This needs to be penalized.

[JaxRolo]

In FED, the BR would be called out under 8-4-1(g). The batter-runner is out when: (g) he runs outside the three-foot running lane (last half of the distance from home plate to first base), while the ball is being fielded or thrown to first base, or 1. this infraction is ignored if it is to avoid a fielder who is attempting to field the batted ball or if the act does not interfere with a fielder or a throw. 2. The batter runner is considered outside the running lane lines if either foot is outside either line.

 

I agree with the above posters, the BR had a clear line to the base and veered to the left to initiate the contact. This needs to be penalized.

Mike this is RLI does not apply here.

[Thunderheads]

 

In FED, the BR would be called out under 8-4-1(g). The batter-runner is out when: (g) he runs outside the three-foot running lane (last half of the distance from home plate to first base), while the ball is being fielded or thrown to first base, or 1. this infraction is ignored if it is to avoid a fielder who is attempting to field the batted ball or if the act does not interfere with a fielder or a throw. 2. The batter runner is considered outside the running lane lines if either foot is outside either line.

 

I agree with the above posters, the BR had a clear line to the base and veered to the left to initiate the contact. This needs to be penalized.

Mike this is RLI does not apply here.

 

are you sure?

[Dash Riprock]

NCAA doesn't have MC; it has a fight rule and a collision rule (which applies only if the fielder is clearly in possession of the ball).

I have (obvious) INT, then a fight rule violation on F3 after the BR passes 1st base (but not on the initial collision), then a fight rule violation on the BR for retaliating, then a whole bunch of fight rule violations for leaving the bench/position on the field and participating in the fight. The penalty is an EJ + a four-game suspension (first offense).

[UmpJM]

Interference.

 

JM

[JaxRolo]

 

 

In FED, the BR would be called out under 8-4-1(g). The batter-runner is out when: (g) he runs outside the three-foot running lane (last half of the distance from home plate to first base), while the ball is being fielded or thrown to first base, or 1. this infraction is ignored if it is to avoid a fielder who is attempting to field the batted ball or if the act does not interfere with a fielder or a throw. 2. The batter runner is considered outside the running lane lines if either foot is outside either line.

 

I agree with the above posters, the BR had a clear line to the base and veered to the left to initiate the contact. This needs to be penalized.

Mike this is RLI does not apply here.

 

are you sure?

 

See post #29

[noumpere]

 

 

In FED, the BR would be called out under 8-4-1(g). The batter-runner is out when: (g) he runs outside the three-foot running lane (last half of the distance from home plate to first base), while the ball is being fielded or thrown to first base, or 1. this infraction is ignored if it is to avoid a fielder who is attempting to field the batted ball or if the act does not interfere with a fielder or a throw. 2. The batter runner is considered outside the running lane lines if either foot is outside either line.

 

I agree with the above posters, the BR had a clear line to the base and veered to the left to initiate the contact. This needs to be penalized.

Mike this is RLI does not apply here.

 

are you sure?

 

RLI should not be a consideration at all, here.

 

the contact is all that matters -- one way or the other.

[Replacematt]

NCAA doesn't have MC; it has a fight rule and a collision rule (which applies only if the fielder is clearly in possession of the ball).

I have (obvious) INT, then a fight rule violation on F3 after the BR passes 1st base (but not on the initial collision), then a fight rule violation on the BR for retaliating, then a whole bunch of fight rule violations for leaving the bench/position on the field and participating in the fight. The penalty is an EJ + a four-game suspension (first offense).

 

I think they would want us to call it here, but I agree; 8-7 does specify a fielder in possession. I can't imagine them saying that it's legal to truck a catcher simply because he's bobbling the ball vice having it in his hand.

[ricka56]

The step and a reach protection should be given when the fielder is still trying to field the ball. But that isn't the case here. The fielder is trying to make a tag. And when you jump in the middle of a runner's path to make a tag, contact will result. BR did not knock the ball loose on the contact. I wouldn't call interference. BR doesn't need obstruction protection either, so I don't have a problem with nothing being the call.

[zm1283]

NCAA doesn't have MC; it has a fight rule and a collision rule (which applies only if the fielder is clearly in possession of the ball).

I have (obvious) INT, then a fight rule violation on F3 after the BR passes 1st base (but not on the initial collision), then a fight rule violation on the BR for retaliating, then a whole bunch of fight rule violations for leaving the bench/position on the field and participating in the fight. The penalty is an EJ + a four-game suspension (first offense).

 

I don't see anyone else actually participating in a fight. 

 

As for the play, I have interference. 

[Dash Riprock]

The step and a reach protection should be given when the fielder is still trying to field the ball. But that isn't the case here. The fielder is trying to make a tag. And when you jump in the middle of a runner's path to make a tag, contact will result. BR did not knock the ball loose on the contact. I wouldn't call interference. BR doesn't need obstruction protection either, so I don't have a problem with nothing being the call.

It doesn't matter what the fielder is 'trying' to do.  If the batted ball is within a step and a reach of the fielder, he is, by definition, in the act of fielding it.

[Dash Riprock]

 

 

I don't see anyone else actually participating in a fight. 

Does this change your view?

 

http://deadspin.com/fsu-florida-fight-generates-more-jameis-winston-rumors-1551691502

[JaxRolo]

The step and a reach protection should be given when the fielder is still trying to field the ball. But that isn't the case here. The fielder is trying to make a tag. And when you jump in the middle of a runner's path to make a tag, contact will result. BR did not knock the ball loose on the contact. I wouldn't call interference. BR doesn't need obstruction protection either, so I don't have a problem with nothing being the call.

There is no tag attempt here. He didn't have a chance to do anything but take the illegal hit!

[Replacematt]

 

The step and a reach protection should be given when the fielder is still trying to field the ball. But that isn't the case here. The fielder is trying to make a tag. And when you jump in the middle of a runner's path to make a tag, contact will result. BR did not knock the ball loose on the contact. I wouldn't call interference. BR doesn't need obstruction protection either, so I don't have a problem with nothing being the call.

There is no tag attempt here. He didn't have a chance to do anything but take the illegal hit!

 

 

And that's the basis for my logic earlier in this thread. If you don't protect the fielder's opportunity (and not just the attempt itself,) you give an incentive for the runner to initiate contact.

[BalkHawk]

What if having failed in his attempt to field the ball, f1 clearly thinks he is in possession and tries to tag with an empty glove? With the ball actually at his feet would you consider him in the act of fielding?

[Thunderheads]

What if having failed in his attempt to field the ball, f1 clearly thinks he is in possession and tries to tag with an empty glove? With the ball actually at his feet would you consider him in the act of fielding?

that's a good question ..........

I'll take a stab ......

 

he may think he is .....but in reality, he's not ....

[BalkHawk]

What he thinks, and reality both matter not. What would you judge?

[maven]

What the fielder is thinking is immaterial to the call. The fielder has the right to an unmolested opportunity to field the ball, and this runner denied him that right.

 

Fielders can lose that right by misplaying the ball, but the criterion for applying this provision is that the ball be beyond a "step and reach." Since the ball did not get that far, this fielder did not lose his right.

 

The runner must avoid this fielder (not just try to avoid), and he failed to do so. INT.

[Thunderheads]

What he thinks, and reality both matter not. What would you judge?

that's exactly what I said .... I thought "in reality he's not" answered it, but .... no, he's not in the act of fielding. 

[maven]

that's exactly what I said .... I thought "in reality he's not" answered it, but .... no, he's not in the act of fielding.

 

Why not, Jeff? He certainly started to field the ball. I can think of 3 ways for the act of fielding to end.

• Fielder gains possession of ball
• Fielder boots ball and it gets away from him more than "a step and a reach"
• Runner interferes

Are you thinking that this play fits one of these other than #3, or do you have another way for the act of fielding to end?

[Replacematt]

 

that's exactly what I said .... I thought "in reality he's not" answered it, but .... no, he's not in the act of fielding.

 

Why not, Jeff? He certainly started to field the ball. I can think of 3 ways for the act of fielding to end.

• Fielder gains possession of ball
• Fielder boots ball and it gets away from him more than "a step and a reach"
• Runner interferes

Are you thinking that this play fits one of these other than #3, or do you have another way for the act of fielding to end?

 

 

I can, but it's not relevant to the actual play (but almost...)