Batter & Catcher collide

[jjskitours]

B1 hits a ball in front of the plate and although not intentional by either B1 or F2 they collide with each other about 10 feet up the line as F2 is attempting to field the ball. The umpire should

a) Call Time, "that's interference", the ball is dead and B1 is out because he failed to avoid F2 attempting to field a ball

B) Hold out left arm with clenched fist, "that's obstruction" and allow the play to proceed. Award B1 1st base if he is put

out.

c) Give the safe signal (preferably with clenched fists) verbalizing "that's nothing" and let the play proceed.

Although this may be one of those you had to be there, what do you think is the best answer - a, b or c

Any rule or case book reference?

[AZump78]

The batter has actually become the batter-runner at this point, so a more accurate title to the post would be "Batter-Runner & Catcher Collide".

Since it is 10 feet up the line (which in my judgement is not "in the immediate vicinity" of home plate, your judgement may differ), C is not an option (J/R p.100). Whether (A) or (B) depends on if the catcher was "in the act of fielding the ball"(J/R p. 99). Your call on that one, but generally considered to be (i) positioning himself for the purpose of gloving the ball (ii) has actually gloved the ball or is about to, without having to take a step, or (iii) is actually throwing the ball (also J/R p. 99). Taking these rules and definitions into account, your judgment should take over from here.

On a side note: I personally don't do the "outstretched arm with clinched fist" mechanic, but if that is the norm for your area/level of ball, go for it. However, in this instance, if obstruction were to occur, there is a very high likelihood it would be obstruction "with a play"- meaning you should immediately call time and remedy the situation, not give the "delayed dead ball" signal.

[mstaylor]

First, I agree with the clinched fist, I know it is a Fed mechanic but I tell guys to just announce it. I am assuming Fed rules because it is in the Fed section. Usually a tangle in the plate area is nothing, once it starts getting away from the plate is can become something. If the BR has cleared the ball and there is contact then it is likely obstruction. If the ball is in front of him, then he probably needs to get out of the way. If you have interference, kill it and call him out. If it's obstruction, Fed is delayed dead ball. I don't know that ten feet is far enough away for it change from a tangle/untangle.

[catsbackr]

"as F2 is attempting to field the ball"

I've got interference.

[mstaylor]

"as F2 is attempting to field the ball"

I've got interference.

It's not that simple.

[carolinablue]

If F2 is attempting to field the ball how can it be obstruction ?

[jjskitours]

Not sure how my situation ended up with a smiley face for choice B). C. Brown - since I did write under the High School site, the NFHS rule for obstruction would be appropriate which mstaylor so noted is a delayed dead ball. Would your answer be different if I said 3 feet or even 6 feet (1 or 2 strides)? I understand it could make a difference based on what you actually see, but want to emphasize it was inadvertent on the part of both B1 and F2. F2 pops up and takes 2 or 3 strides towards the ball and B1 takes a couple of strides towards 1st base and they collide.

[mstaylor]

If the ball is close enough to the plate that the BR and the catcher have occupy the same space then it is nothing. I can't give a distance, that's one you just have to umpire. If the ball is going up the line, the BR has cleared the ball but for the catcher to field the ball he runs into the BR. There is no way the BR can be held liable for something behind him so it is going to be obstruction. Same play but the ball is in front of him, then he has to move out of the way or it will be interference. For it to be interference or obstruction the ball has to be far enough away that either has a reasonable chance to find the ball.

[AZump78]

Not sure how my situation ended up with a smiley face for choice B). C. Brown - since I did write under the High School site, the NFHS rule for obstruction would be appropriate which mstaylor so noted is a delayed dead ball. Would your answer be different if I said 3 feet or even 6 feet (1 or 2 strides)? I understand it could make a difference based on what you actually see, but want to emphasize it was inadvertent on the part of both B1 and F2. F2 pops up and takes 2 or 3 strides towards the ball and B1 takes a couple of strides towards 1st base and they collide.

Sorry, I am not a Fed guy so the delayed OBS did not occur to me. My bad.

If the contact between the BR and F2 occurred in the immediate vicinity of the plate then yes that would change my call. 3ft would almost certainly be immediate vicinity (in my judgement). 2 strides? Can't say for sure without seeing it firsthand (especially if it is a left-handed batter).

Also-FED or not-if it happens outside the immediate vicinity of the plate, inadvertent contact carries the same penalty as intentional (but not malicious) contact.

[jjskitours]

I see nothing under NF rules or case book. However MLB 7.09(j) Comment reads

Rule 7.09(j) Comment: When a catcher and batter-runner going to first base have contact when

the catcher is fielding the ball, there is generally no violation and nothing should be called.

[catsbackr]

"as F2 is attempting to field the ball"

I've got interference.

It's not that simple.

As described in the OP, it is exactly that simple.

B1 hits a ball in front of the plate and although not intentional by either B1 or F2 they collide with each other about 10 feet up the line as F2 is attempting to field the ball.

Change the OP to, ball hit to second baseman, as he is attempting to field the ball, the runner from 1B collides with him. What do you have?

Don't complicate this situation.

[mstaylor]

I understand what you are saying but I contend that it is different at the plate because there is a period of time or distance that nothing is to be called. Then there is whether the BR has cleared the ball after that grace period. If he has cleared it and there is contact from the catcher from behind then it can't be interference, unless you have him trying to be in the way intentionally.

[carolinablue]

I can see how it can be INT. or how it can be nothing but still don't understand how it can be obstruction if F2 is attempting to field the ball.

[Guest]

I don't know anything except OBR but it seems FED is similar in the interpretation. If not, assume my answer falls under only OBR

The first few feet of the basepath between the batter-runner and 1B are a "grey area" due to the nature of the many situations that can happen resulting in contact between the B-R and F2. There just isn't enough real estate around the plate to hold this situation to the same principles regarding other aspects of offensive interference. Ten feet up the line can be as little as two strides for a left handed batter.

A simple set of questions to ask yourself

1) Does the B-R have the right to do what they are doing?

2) Does F2 have the right to do what they are doing?

If the answer to both is "yes", then you have a simple collision due to the limited real estate around the plate area and no call to be made.

As soon as you have one or the other doing something they shouldn't be, you have INT or OBS.

An example of an INT situation happened this year in MLB. A batter laid down a bunt, which took a weird hop in front of the plate and begun spinning back into foul territory out in front and off to the side of the occupied batter's box. The batter remained in the box, figuring the ball would roll foul, electing to remain at the plate to conserve energy. However, F2 had a shot at touching the ball fair and getting at least one, if not two outs on the play. However, because the batter remained at the box for an abnormal amount of time, they collided, and the B-R was ruled out for INT.

OBS would be an overzealous catcher running after a ball he has zero chance of fielding before another fielder does, and subsequently gets tangled up with the B-R.

Don't get me wrong, I love outs, but when I have some contact around the plate, chances are I'm going to let it go.

[Haid D' Salaami]

B1 hits a ball in front of the plate and although not intentional by either B1 or F2 they collide with each other about 10 feet up the line as F2 is attempting to field the ball. The umpire should

a) Call Time, "that's interference", the ball is dead and B1 is out because he failed to avoid F2 attempting to field a ball

B) Hold out left arm with clenched fist, "that's obstruction" and allow the play to proceed. Award B1 1st base if he is put

out.

c) Give the safe signal (preferably with clenched fists) verbalizing "that's nothing" and let the play proceed.

Although this may be one of those you had to be there, what do you think is the best answer - a, b or c

Any rule or case book reference?

please do not.. do not give safe signals with closed fist... only use a open palms down signal.. I'm not sure where this is being taught...

[JaxRolo]

I have never ever seen a "Safe Signal" with closed Fist before

[AZump78]

c) Give the safe signal (preferably with clenched fists) verbalizing "that's nothing" and let the play proceed.

Jiminy Christmas...I can't believe that wasn't brought up until now...Who taught you this?

[mstaylor]

I can see how it can be INT. or how it can be nothing but still don't understand how it can be obstruction if F2 is attempting to field the ball.

The operative phrase is attempting to field the ball. If you feel it is far enough away from the plate that the grace period is over and the catcher contacts a runner that has passed the ball, it is likely obstruction.

[jjskitours]

The arm motion is similar to the safe signal and with the clenched fists you are giving a "I have nothing signal" and not that a runner is safe. There will be situations where you want to indicate by signal that there is no violation on a play, but don't want to indicate the runner is safe. In fact he may be out just a second or two later. I totally agree with open palm down for a SAFE signal.

[mstaylor]

Do as your assoc says do it, but no one teaches closed fists for a nothing call. It's like saying you have to used closed fists on a foul call because you aren't calling time.

[Replacematt]

Do as your assoc says do it, but no one teaches closed fists for a nothing call. It's like saying you have to used closed fists on a foul call because you aren't calling time.

Ooh...I'm stealing this one--I'm going to teach that this year. We'll see which coast it reaches first.

[JaxRolo]

If you have nothing then its nothing. No need for a signal.

[UmpTTS43]

If you have nothing then its nothing. No need for a signal.

If there is a situation where it looks like something happened, especially when there is contact, and you have nothing, you should definately signal. Use the safe mechanic and say "that's nothing."

[Haid D' Salaami]

The arm motion is similar to the safe signal and with the clenched fists you are giving a "I have nothing signal" and not that a runner is safe. There will be situations where you want to indicate by signal that there is no violation on a play, but don't want to indicate the runner is safe. In fact he may be out just a second or two later. I totally agree with open palm down for a SAFE signal.

I will say this one more time...

DO NOT USE A CLOSED FIST... please... there is nothing anywhere about closed fist... you still give the same safe signal for " I've got nothing"

[Haid D' Salaami]

If you have nothing then its nothing. No need for a signal.

wow.. slow doen.. this is not true....

example.. batted ball comes very close to touching a runner.. "signal, I've got nothng" is telling the coaches I saw it and it was close, but nothing..

example.. batter swings and misses and is over the plate but is nowhere close to interfering,,, give a "i've got nothing signal".. it is telling everyone that you saw it but and it was close, but not enough.. these little things seperate regular umpire from the top umpires..I promise you do some of these things.. it will stand out.