F2 and BR Get Tangled Out of the Box

[grayhawk]

Not sure I agree with the "protected fielder" idea here.  On this play, F2 was out from behind the plate very quickly and the "contact" occurred before he or anyone else knew who was going to field the ball.  In any case, if it was F2, and not the BR, who fell to the ground, are you saying that since he was the "protected fielder" that you would have INT on the runner if that were to happen?

 

I still believe that this was a case of both players doing what was expected of them.  The BR was running to first, and F2 was hustling out to field the ball.  Does anyone expect F2 to stay behind the plate on a bunt?  The fact that the ball traveled too far up the line for him to then field it is not relevant, IMO, unless he ran up the BR's backside and tripped him.

 

I believe the intent of the exception is to protect both players from incidental contact at the plate area, as long as neither are doing anything "extra" to create a problem for the other. 

[UmpTTS43]

Off topic. There is zero reason to work the scissors that far back.

[mbrown2097]

Interesting, I looked at this thing full screen, and I think that the batter flopped.  He realized that his bunt sucked and took a dive trying to draw a call.  He was clear of the bat and catcher when he just simply flopped.

[sdix00]

When I say "protected fielder", I mean he probably can't commit OBS.

 

Absent any intent, I would not call INT in this sitch (contact from behind the runner). 

[bam]

This happened last week. HS varsity game at Angels Stadium. The umpires are from our local HS Association.

A couple of issues here:

1. Was there contact? Clearly, if there was no contact, then there is no call to make (perhaps, "that's nothing" if you feel it's warranted).

2. If there was contact, how you would rule on this play in Fed and OBR?

">

My "spoiler alert" answer below.

In OBR, even if there was contact, then I have nothing. When contact between F2 and the BR occurs right in front of home plate on batted ball (or bunt) that F2 is making a play on), then as long as there is nothing "extracurricular" going on (such as a shove, a trip, or something else intentional). then neither obstruction nor interference should be called. 7.09(j) Comment. Initially, I could not remember if Fed used the same interpretation as OBR, so I sought the counsel of the BRD. Sure enough, Papa C says to treat as in NCAA (which is the same as OBR).

I suppose an argument could be made that F2 was not able to play on the ball because it was too far up the line, but he was making a legitimate play on the ball when the "tangle" occurred. So, my opinion is that contact or no contact, I have nothing on this play.

[grayhawk]

Obstruction.  If you view the video from the Vimeo site, there is a description of the play and the call.

[BigUmpire]

Plate umpire got suckered into a ghost call from a smart coach.

[Rich Ives]

 

I firmly believe (assuming contact, of course) that "that's nothing" would be incorrect.

 

Is that like strenuously objecting?

 

 

 You can't handle the truth.

[jkumpire]

Off topic. There is zero reason to work the scissors that far back.

 

Best post of the whole thread, I was about to post the same thing.

 

BTW....

 

 

[johnnyg08]

OBR changed tangle/untangle last year.  I'll see if I can find it in MLBUM

[Jimurray]

OBR changed tangle/untangle last year.  I'll see if I can find it in MLBUM

I don't think they changed tangle/ untangle. They changed a batter out of the box contacting a batted ball.

[johnnyg08]

You might be right.  I skimmed it and didn't think about it again until I saw this thread.

[urout17]

The BR tripped on his own and tried to blame his stupidity on F2. I have nothing.

[ricka56]

Maybe there was contact that PU saw, perhaps he was bambozzled...you can't tell from the video.

 

On a bunt, F2 should have protection from obstruction until protection moves to another fielder. If there was contact, I think it happened before F2 lost his protection. I'd have nothing.

[Jimurray]

You might be right.  I skimmed it and didn't think about it again until I saw this thread.

 

I'm not right either. It was a batter interfering after a third strike not caught. The MLBUM wording changed to reflect the change in 7.09(a) Comment.

[PGOLDEN88]

Fieldin Culbreath explained one to Matt Weiters, that you have to allow a little contact on a situation like that. (I was at that MLB game - Oakland at Baltimore 8/24/13, have the full game on my computer if anyone wants it.) That's nothing to me.