maven

Disagree: grayhawk is right. BU in B can certainly see this. The FED rule clearly requires sliding on a direct line between the bases, which this is not. The stick is shîtty only because so many umpires can't be arsed to enforce the rule. I recommend becoming part of the solution.

BRD (2015) §345: FED "When a fielder muffs a batted ball and he must move to re-field it, if contact occurs in the base path, the umpire will protect the runner unless the official declares deliberate interference (8-4-2g)." BRD §346: Play 208–346: R1. B1 rockets the ball of F1's glove. The ball rolls directly into the base path, and F4 races for it. BR has neared first at moment R1 crashes into the second baseman. The umpire judges the runner could have avoided the contact. F4 has not yet reached the ball at the time of the crash.... Ruling: In FED, R1 is out for interference.

"Why is that the rule" questions have to be answered historically. OBS originally had no exception for fielders who are fielding batted balls. The rule evolved to afford fielders who are fielding a batted ball an exception, which OBR calls fielder right of way and is also known as "protection." Giving that fielder a limited protection from OBS improved the competitive balance of the game. Over time, that protection also evolved in order to accommodate plays where a fielder initially is protected, but then fails to field the batted ball—a deflection. He loses the right of way, and is once again (and instantly) liable for OBS. But the defense is still entitled to play on the batted ball, and if another fielder is in a better position to do it, why wouldn't you protect that fielder? The rationale for doing so is exactly the same as for protecting the first fielder. And the rules don't distinguish between a "merely" deflected hard shot and a misplayed slow roller. Once a batted ball gets away from a fielder, he usually loses his protection (though it's possible that he's still best positioned to field the deflected ball, as when a corner infielder deflects a ball into foul territory—though then right of way/protection from OBS is moot).

This is incorrect, and the "although" statement is misleading. A batted ball that deflects off a fielder to another fielder can involve protecting 2 different fielders. First, the one playing the initial batted ball is protected, then the one playing the deflected ball is protected. You are correct that we may change our minds regarding who is protected. This typically involves a batted ball hit between 2 fielders, one of whom turns out to have had a better play on the ball. Sometimes, both can happen in one and the same play. You're running together unrelated concepts. An error is a scoring term used to assign responsibility for baserunners and earned/unearned runs if they score. A deflection is a term used to describe what happens to a moving baseball. A deflected ball might or might not involve an error by a fielder, depending on whether it involves a batted ball that could have been fielded with routine effort. This is correct. More specifically, once a fielder is no longer protected, he's liable for OBS if he hinders a runner. And that can happen instantaneously (see the coach who asks, "what's he supposed to do, disappear?" Obnoxious reply #1: yup. Obnoxious reply #2: "no, he's supposed to field the ball cleanly."). On a batted ball in the infield, deflected or no, somebody is protected. If that's someone other than the initial fielder playing the ball, the runners will have to avoid him. I assume that addresses what your last sentence is asking (not sure what "continue to chase after that ball" implies).

I would have thought that every HS varsity coach would want to know that rule. I know a bunch of them who are always looking for a rules advantage—sometimes in the weirdest places. (You're welcome for me not hijacking the thread with war stories...)

You'd think that at least one of them might think, "Oh, how embarrassing that I said that on the broadcast. Maybe I should learn the rule?"

I'd call that balk to end a game. Mid-August meaningless fall ball game, 106°, bottom of the 19th inning, nobody has any pitching left. Otherwise, I don't see it.

It's not an error. The advance is scored on the passed ball, which is a ding on F2's stats.

Not obstruction. The runner slows because he thinks he's done at 3B. Then he reads that HP has no fielder, because F2 is standing next to him, and he restarts. His base path is the normal one for any runner rounding a base, and F2 simply isn't in the way.

I think it matters the level—both age and competition—how to proceed. For 10U and below, and for "rec ball," let a sub go back in. Getting more field time will be valuable. For older and more competitive leagues, enforce the substitution rule as written.

I disagree with everyone. The assignor is incorrect: his statement suggests that the box is safe haven. It is not: it's quite possible to have batter INT while the batter remains in the box (several different ways, in fact). Whoever said a throw is required for there to be batter INT is incorrect: it's simply nowhere in the rule. The poster who says that stepping toward 3B after the swing is part of a normal swing is incorrect. It is not: some batter step out as they stride, but that's not what happened in the OP. The poster who says the batter needs to vacate the box is incorrect (or, for this play, irrelevant): when F2 pops up to throw, this provision does not apply. It applies when the ball gets away from F2, and the batter has time to vacate the area. As I read the play, this is clearly batter INT. The batter violated the rule prohibiting him from making "any other movement" (besides a swing) and hindering F2's play. The "any other movement" was stepping toward 3B; the hindrance was preventing F2 from throwing. The batter INT rule is complex (as the OP realizes from the penalty he invoked), and it is subject to many myths and misconceptions.

I agree with Velho about the meaning of the point. I have no idea for pro ball or NCAA whether this constitutes an unmistakable appeal. It would not in an amateur game below NCAA.

I think I saw her years ago. Redhead? Big...personality? Yes, both. He must touch 3B on the last time by. Same ruling all codes.

Thanks, I updated my post accordingly.

This is INT, as I envision it. The relevant rule is OBR 6.01(a)(10) and its cognates in other codes (thanks JM for the correction): By interpretation, we extend this concept of "right of way" or protection (from OBS) to only 1 fielder, namely the one mostly likely to field the batted ball. The play on the batted ball need not be a catch, but could include retrieving it after it hits the ground. That sounds like what happened here. The rule does not include a requirement that the fielder be likely to make a catch, so by inserting that you deprived the defense of the proper penalty here. Obviously, we're not calling runner INT on a can of corn to the outfield—a collision in that case would be OBS. But a bloop that can be retrieved by an infielder does invoke the right of way provision. Umpire judgment is required in borderline cases (and this could be one), but any benefit of the doubt goes to the defense. It sounds as if F4 could have gotten to the ball, in which case I'd have INT. I agree with you: this is a terrible idea and makes us look indecisive. It's OK to point at the collision and wait to process what we've seen, but we don't want to change the call because one's delayed dead and gives us a chance to let it play out.

IIRC, no dead ball appeal should be granted until baserunners have had the opportunity to correct their errors. A scoring runner may correct his errors in FED until he enters the dugout. So we should wait to rule on DB appeals (which are verbal appeals) until the runner enters the dugout. It's not perfectly clear in the rules that the duration of the runner's "opportunity to correct" is exactly the same as the window for "returning to correct," but that's how I would treat it.

I wish I had said that. Oh wait, I did.

I know that you know this, but not everyone will: this actually used to happen, back when the rule required runners to retouch after a fly ball was caught. A rule change long before anyone here was born instituted the current requirement, that runners retouch on a caught fly ball after a fielder touches the ball.

Well, a passed ball gets past F2, right? 😵‍💫

The question about order of appeals presupposes that there were less than 2 outs on the play. The order doesn't matter. The first appeal will nullify that runner's run. The second appeal will nullify the other runner's run. The truth of this statement—and it is true—is an artifact of the BR missing 1B. Had he missed any other base, and there were 2 outs, R1's run would have counted when the appeal of the BR's miss made the third out. Of course, in that situation, R1's miss could still be appealed for an advantageous 4th out.

Yes, that's OBS. Good call, weak mechanics. Good call: F2 sets up in the base path and blocks the runner's access to HP. Not enough amateur umpires get this call. Weak mechanics: it's not clear that he's ruling OBS. Point at F2 and verbalize "That's OBS!" then signal safe. Maybe do all that twice (it's a scoring play).

That's true for a batted ball. My remark about contact was more general.

If the error is unrelated to the actions of the runner, then it is what it is. Unlike OBS, INT is generally not connected to the outcome of the play—either the runner hindered the fielder or he didn't. We don't go back and change our judgment because the fielder subsequently erred.

Even umpires don't know how to do a live-ball appeal.

Hindrance, of course. And what counts as hindrance is so heavily context, level, and situation dependent that it's difficult to offer even rough generalities regarding it. Contact? Sometimes but not always hindrance. "Alter the path?" Sometimes but not always. Etc. In that White Sox game, the umpire (U3, it seems) judged that the fielder was hindered. That would not have been my call, but I'm no MLB umpire.