Baseball runner inference

[Guest Bill C]

Situation:  bases are loaded, 2 outs. The batter hits a hard shot back at the pitcher. It ticks of his glove and rolls directly to the 2nd baseman. As he is about to field the ball he is run over by the base runner going from 1st to 2nd. It Should be an easy 4-3 put out. The initial call is interfence and the runner was ruled out. The officials reversed their call 4 times as the offending teams coach made up rules that are not in the rule book. Keeping in mind this is high school not the NFL. What is your interpretation?

[noumpere]

Since F4 was in the process of fielding a batted ball, he's (now) the protected fielder.  It doesn't matter that the ball was deflected.

 

Note that the rule (and ruling) would be different if R1 was hit by the deflected ball.  In that instance, R1 is not guilty of INT (assuming it was unintentional), even if F4 was waiting to make a play.

[aaluck]

17 minutes ago, Guest Bill C said:

The officials reversed their call 4 times

This is a simple situation.  There should be no need to have 4 reversals.

Runner is out. Maybe B/R is out as well if it was an obvious double play under FED.

[Biscuit]

24 minutes ago, noumpere said:

Since F4 was in the process of fielding a batted ball, he's (now) the protected fielder.  It doesn't matter that the ball was deflected.

 

Note that the rule (and ruling) would be different if R1 was hit by the deflected ball.  In that instance, R1 is not guilty of INT (assuming it was unintentional), even if F4 was waiting to make a play.

That’s due to the contact with the glove, not the ball passing the pitcher, as he doesn’t count for passing an infielder, right?

[noumpere]

5 minutes ago, Biscuit said:

That’s due to the contact with the glove, not the ball passing the pitcher, as he doesn’t count for passing an infielder, right?

Hence my use of the word "deflected."

[Biscuit]

1 minute ago, noumpere said:

Hence my use of the word "deflected."

I was pretty sure that’s how it’d work, but just wanted to make sure, because if I didn’t, you know that exact situation would come up in my games tonight, and I’d have a sliver of doubt 

[maven]

6 hours ago, noumpere said:

Note that the rule (and ruling) would be different if R1 was hit by the deflected ball.  In that instance, R1 is not guilty of INT (assuming it was unintentional), even if F4 was waiting to make a play.

Right: the runner is still expected to avoid the fielder.

Because there's no such thing as a deflected fielder, you see...

[Senor Azul]

From the 2016 BRD (section 346, p. 228):

FED Official Interpretation:  Rumble:  Following deflection of a batted ball by F1, when a fielder and a runner have contact in the base path:  The umpire assesses no penalty as long as he is certain the runner had little or no time to change directions. The resulting play is a “collision,” neither interference nor obstruction. If the runner could have avoided contact, interference is the call. (1990)

Note:  FED uses a different criterion:  Does the runner have time to change direction?

[grayhawk]

We had interference yesterday

[noumpere]

1 hour ago, Senor Azul said:

From the 2016 BRD (section 346, p. 228):

FED Official Interpretation:  Rumble:  Following deflection of a batted ball by F1, when a fielder and a runner have contact in the base path:  The umpire assesses no penalty as long as he is certain the runner had little or no time to change directions. The resulting play is a “collision,” neither interference nor obstruction. If the runner could have avoided contact, interference is the call. (1990)

Note:  FED uses a different criterion:  Does the runner have time to change direction?

99% certain that interp from FED almost 30 years ago is not valid.

[Aging_Arbiter]

35 minutes ago, grayhawk said:

We had interference yesterday

now THAT...............is a deflected fielder

[Richvee]

12 hours ago, Guest Bill C said:

Situation:  bases are loaded, 2 outs. The batter hits a hard shot back at the pitcher. It ticks of his glove and rolls directly to the 2nd baseman. As he is about to field the ball he is run over by the base runner going from 1st to 2nd. It Should be an easy 4-3 put out. The initial call is interfence and the runner was ruled out. The officials reversed their call 4 times as the offending teams coach made up rules that are not in the rule book. Keeping in mind this is high school not the NFL. What is your interpretation?

Did this happen in NJ?? I heard a VERY similar story at my game today......

[Replacematt]

15 minutes ago, Richvee said:

Did this happen in NJ?? I heard a VERY similar story at my game today......

If it was, he wouldn't be allowed to say.

[Richvee]

5 minutes ago, Matt said:

If it was, he wouldn't be allowed to say.

haha..Only if he was the umpire. I got a feeling the poster is a player, coach, or a fan. During my 1 hour wait for the visiting team to show up today, (don't ask) my partner was telling me about a play eerily similar that happened this week (Not to him). His version didn't say they changed the call 4 times...but let's just say the crew's final decision in the version I heard was incorrect.

[maven]

13 hours ago, noumpere said:

99% certain that interp from FED almost 30 years ago is not valid.

I'm 100% hopeful that's the case. Rumble had some doozies.