Play I saw

[carolinablue]

In between games I was watching action on another field.

Right handed batter chops one off plate in fair territory, about 3-4 feet up the 1BL line and striaght into the air. BR is out of box and running towards 1st as F2 comes up to field ball and makes unintentional contact to BR's back and bumps him into the ball which is still in fair territory. Again all this happened in fair territory and outside the batter's box. I'm pretty sure ball would have missed BR if not for the contact. PU on field called BR out for being touched with batted ball. I'm not sure. It was FED rules but would like OBR ruling as well if any different. Thanks.

[Jocko]

If F2 is my protected fielder, I have BR out for INT, which would supercede the batted ball touching runner.

[UMP45]

HTBT. If happens close to plate, and both are doing what they are supposed to do, play on.

[JamesC]

If F2 is my protected fielder, I have BR out for INT, which would supercede the batted ball touching runner.

If F2 made contact with the runner's back, how do you have INT on the runner? I don't see how the runner could have done anything to avoid someone making contact with him that he could not see (behind his back).

I agree with UMP45 on this one, HTBT definitely. I can't see letting them play on though, as the runner did make contact with the ball. I don't think it's really possible to avoid calling anything if that clearly happens. I probably get F2 for obstructing the play, or try to sell the hell out of a foul ball! :angel4:

[JaxRolo]

HTBT. If happens close to plate, and both are doing what they are supposed to do, play on.

I agree. More than likely nothing.

[th3]

can you let them play on if the br touched the ball in fair territory?

[Jocko]

IF F2 IS PROTECTED, INT. Nowhere in the rules does INT require intent.

If R2 is making an attempt at the ball, whether BR meant to interfere or not, he did. I don't see how you could call OBS because F2 was going for the ball. BR and f2 made contact BEFORE either of them or another fielder touched the ball. Sounds like textbook INT to me.

[th3]

i agree with interference...

[carolinablue]

(j) He fails to avoid a fielder who is attempting to field a batted ball, or intentionally

interferes with a thrown ball, provided that if two or more fielders attempt to field

a batted ball, and the runner comes in contact with one or more of them, the umpire

shall determine which fielder is entitled to the benefit of this rule, and shall not

declare the runner out for coming in contact with a fielder other than the one the

umpire determines to be entitled to field such a ball;

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.

“Obstruction†by a fielder attempting to field a ball should be called only in very flagrant and violent

cases because the rules give him the right of way, but of course such “right of way†is not a license to,

for example, intentionally trip a runner even though fielding the ball. If the catcher is fielding the ball

and the first baseman or pitcher obstructs a runner going to first base “obstruction†shall be called and

the base runner awarded first base.

This is why I asked the question. Since contact of this nature is generally nothing, I was thinking one of two possibilities.

1) No illegal contact thus nothing, play the bounce. or

2) Since the contact was nothing ( not illegal ) the results of the contact would stand and is a tough break for BR and he is out for touching a batted ball in fair territory as was called on the field.

Im not sure if FED has a similiar rule or interp as the 7.09 (j) comment and I have worked all night and am too tired to look at it now.

[JamesC]

I can't see justifying an interference call if the runners back is to the play and the F2 touches him. Now if they're side by side, I'm ok with it. But if he is ahead of the catcher and running toward first base like he should be and the catcher pushes him in the back, I'm not calling interference there.

[Thunderheads]

I can't see justifying an interference call if the runners back is to the play and the F2 touches him. Now if they're side by side, I'm ok with it. But if he is ahead of the catcher and running toward first base like he should be and the catcher pushes him in the back, I'm not calling interference there.

agreed .... BR is running to first IN FRONT of F2 ....there's no way in hell I'm calling INT on that!

[mstaylor]

In most plays I would have nothing but once contact caused the ball to hit the runner, I would go with obstruction. The runner can not be responsible for a fielder running into him from behind unless he did something unnatural to get between the fielder and the ball. Rememeber that in OBR that is type A obstruction.

[basejester]

2) Since the contact was nothing ( not illegal ) the results of the contact would stand and is a tough break for BR and he is out for touching a batted ball in fair territory as was called on the field.

This is where I come out. It certainly doesn't sound like OBS, so I think there's an out here, whether INT or touching the fair ball.

Interesting question.

[Thunderheads]

guys, you can't call INT on BR running to first who is IN FRONT of F2 .... running to first .........

This is a HTBT for sure

[BRUMP]

HTBT

[noumpere]

In most plays I would have nothing but once contact caused the ball to hit the runner, I would go with obstruction. The runner can not be responsible for a fielder running into him from behind unless he did something unnatural to get between the fielder and the ball. Rememeber that in OBR that is type A obstruction.

Contact by the catcher into the runner from behind is almost always going to be OBS.

[Jocko]

Without actual visual, it's truly hard to be definitive. Just too many variables. Devil's advocate says INT, angel says OBS. In all likelyhood, the right call should be play on McDuff.

[Rich Ives]

Read the 7.08(j) comment again. It isn't int and it isn't obs unless blatant.

I'd like to think with Mike on the obs call but I think it's really just a tough break call.

[mstaylor]

If I have to choose between Int/Obs,being hit from behind I am going with obstruction. Most likely it is nothing except for the running into the ball. If the push is the cause of the touch of the ball then it has to be obs, you can't call an out on a runner that wouldn't have touched the ball otherwise. If you think he would have been contacted by the ball then certainly call the out. At no time would I have interference unless he makes a sideways move or something to cause the interference.

[Jocko]

Read the 7.08(j) comment again. It isn't GENERALLY NO VIOLATION and it isn't obs unless blatant.

Fixed. The obscurity of the interp wording leads me to think the possibility exists for INT w/o flagrancy, but I can't picture it.

So, in the OP, when would you kill the ball?

[UmpJM]

As presented, I'm going with Type A Obstruction. From JEA:

The batter tops a ball down the first base line. The batter is advancing toward first base while the catcher comes,

up from behind to field the fair ball. The catcher inadvertently trips the batter...retrieves the ball and tags the fallen

batter-runner. What's the call?

RULING: When the batter-runner is tripped from behind, obstruction should be called. The batter-runner is

awarded first base.

JM

[Thunderheads]

As presented, I'm going with Type A Obstruction. From JEA:

The batter tops a ball down the first base line. The batter is advancing toward first base while the catcher comes,

up from behind to field the fair ball. The catcher inadvertently trips the batter...retrieves the ball and tags the fallen

batter-runner. What's the call?

RULING: When the batter-runner is tripped from behind, obstruction should be called. The batter-runner is

awarded first base.

JM

:notworthy:

[Rich Ives]

Read the 7.08(j) comment again. It isn't GENERALLY NO VIOLATION and it isn't obs unless blatant.

Fixed. The obscurity of the interp wording leads me to think the possibility exists for INT w/o flagrancy, but I can't picture it.

So, in the OP, when would you kill the ball?

If the call required it, insrantly. Int with fielder, int with batted ball, and type a obs all require that.

[basejester]

guys, you can't call INT on BR running to first who is IN FRONT of F2 .... running to first .........

Why not? We're not judging intent or fault. It's an injustice like a pitch thrown at a batter who fouls it off in an attempt to bail or a runner who struck by a hard-hit batted ball. Sometimes SH*# happens.

I mean, I still think the interpretation and comment are telling us this is a train wreck and then an out for contacting the ball. I just think INT is reasonable and OBS is not, given no intent on either party.

[Thunderheads]

guys, you can't call INT on BR running to first who is IN FRONT of F2 .... running to first .........

Why not? We're not judging intent or fault. It's an injustice like a pitch thrown at a batter who fouls it off in an attempt to bail or a runner who struck by a hard-hit batted ball. Sometimes SH*# happens.

I mean, I still think the interpretation and comment are telling us this is a train wreck and then an out for contacting the ball. I just think INT is reasonable and OBS is not, given no intent on either party.

why not? because I'd never call it unless there was total clear cut intent .......