Play I saw

[soapbox]

Sorry coach, I didn't see BR come into contact with the ball. Let play stand.

[mstaylor]

The reason for the interp that says that contact near the plate is nothing is because both are trying to make a play in the same area, so any int/obs is going to have to be extraordinary. In this play it is way before the need for the 45 ft line so int has to be intentional. Obs on the other hand can be less so simply because he is coming from behind and should have a better chance to avoid a problem. The HTBT portion is judging whether the runner would have hit the ball minus the contact.

[grayhawk]

Sorry coach, I didn't see BR come into contact with the ball. Let play stand.

Two problems I have with this:

1. I don't lie about what I see - period. Just because one doesn't know how, or simply doesn't want to enforce the rule is no excuse to lie.

2. It may be obvious to everyone that the ball was kicked anyway.

The play must be killed immediately when the fair ball was touched by the BR. The key aspect of the OP is this, "I'm pretty sure ball would have missed BR if not for the contact." That dictates, to me, that OBS is the proper call. Obstruction doesn't have to be intentional, and F2 pushed the BR from behind into the ball. F2's at fault, so F2's team is penalized.

[mstaylor]

If the obstruction is obvious enough, you are killing it immediately so the contact doesn't happen.

[grayhawk]

I viewed the original play such that nothing would have been called if the ball hadn't been kicked (regular play where BR and F2 make contact near the plate). However, seeing that the contact initated by F2 caused BR to kick the ball, then OBS is called. The play is killed at that point, both for the type A OBS and the kick.

[basejester]

OBSTRUCTION is the act of a fielder who, while not in possession of the ball and

not in the act of fielding the ball, impedes the progress of any runner.

F2 comes up to field ball . . .

By the OBR definition of OBS, it's not OBS.

[th3]

Sorry coach, I didn't see BR come into contact with the ball. Let play stand.

you'd lie? you??

[Jocko]

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

JM, that's exactly what we needed. You da man :

[carolinablue]

The only problem is the BR wasn't tripped on the play, it was a significant bump however ( enough to cause him to hit the ball ) but he really wasn't hindered in his advance to 1B. The rule says it's only OBS. in very flagrant and violent cases such as the trip described in the JEA, so I guess it all comes down to the Umpires judgement of how severe the contact was,. I'm still leaning towards that's nothing. Just because a runner is touched with a batted ball doesn't mean it has to be something and the ball becomes dead, that only happens if it is INT. This whole play may fall under the sometimes you just have to umpire catagory.

[Jocko]

Depends on what happened after BR touched the ball. In the OP, play was killed, so we'll never know. So let's speculate a bit...

F2 touches BR who in turn touches the ball:

1) The ball deflects off of BR and goes foul

2) The ball deflects, is fielded, and BR is thrown out at 1b

3) The ball deflects, changes direction enough for BR to be safe at 1b

Chime in on your thought, and give reference where applicable

[basejester]

Depends on what happened after BR touched the ball.

I don't think it does, at least not in OBR. If you haven't made a ruling that killed the play before the ball is touched, the batter-runner touching it kills the play.

7.08 Any runner is out when—

(f) He is touched by a fair ball in fair territory before the ball has touched or passed an

infielder. The ball is dead and no runner may score, nor runners advance, except

runners forced to advance..

[Jocko]

Depends on what happened after BR touched the ball.

I don't think it does, at least not in OBR. If you haven't made a ruling that killed the play before the ball is touched, the batter-runner touching it kills the play.

7.08 Any runner is out when—

(f) He is touched by a fair ball in fair territory before the ball has touched or passed an

infielder. The ball is dead and no runner may score, nor runners advance, except

runners forced to advance..

I'm talking about if you play it out, then it depends......

[JamesC]

Regardless what your interpretation is (INT or OBS), you CANNOT let this play out as a "that's nothing" case. Simply because the BR made initial contact with a live, batted ball in fair territory, prior to the ball passing a base/fielder (you know, satisfying all the good rules and things that make it important). There is no way to avoid this. And if you just try to take the easy way out by saying you didn't see the contact (when everyone in the park did), you are just opening the door for one of the most criticized games of your career; which may actually be deserved after this lie.

I'm going with OBS in this case. I cannot see calling INT on the BR when the contact was made by F2 from behind.

Now, if there were no contact with the ball by the BR, and everything else still happened, I could see letting this situation go as one of those "that's nothing" things.

[basejester]

Depends on what happened after BR touched the ball. In the OP, play was killed, so we'll never know. So let's speculate a bit...

F2 touches BR who in turn touches the ball:

Hypothetically if we're ignoring the touched ball (which I think is a bad idea), then we're ignoring it. All of these plays would be called according to what transpired.

1) The ball deflects off of BR and goes foul

Foul.

2) The ball deflects, is fielded, and BR is thrown out at 1b

Out.

3) The ball deflects, changes direction enough for BR to be safe at 1b

Safe.

Again, I don't think we should ignore it. Maybe I don't understand what you're asking.

[soapbox]

I was really just kidding about the not seeing it part. However, sometimes, every situation does not have a clear answer and is open to interpretation. The other day in a FP SB tournament I had B1 request time as F1 was starting motion. She turned her head to me and then towards F1. The pitch hit her. I awarded the base. Coach started screaming that she "made no effort" to get out ot the way of the pitch. That is the ASA rule for HBP. They were right. She made no effort, but she couldn't. Put herself in a positon where she couldn't possibly react as the ball came right at her. Am I to follow the exact wording? Very next batter got hit. She checked her swing and definitely held, but couldn't do that and dodge the ball. Again coach argued. I'm just saying that sometimes, we must make a judgement even though the rule is written a certain way. If I'm wrong, let me know.

[Jocko]

Mostly intended for the "It's Nothing" camp. Trying to get some umpire mental juices flowing on how you could possibly play on.

I agree with you. You simply cannot ignore the contact BR had with the ball.

The only 2 legitimate options are OBS, award 1b or out for ball contact.

I think OBS after reading JMs post of JE interp. The bump is equivelant to a trip IMO concerning the play in question.

[basejester]

The argument for OBS seems to be all about what the runner deserves, rather that what rules apply. There's certainly a time and place for that. I wouldn't use that line of thinking here, but I think I understand where you coming from.

[mstaylor]

The argument for OBS seems to be all about what the runner deserves, rather that what rules apply. There's certainly a time and place for that. I wouldn't use that line of thinking here, but I think I understand where you coming from.

It is not about what the runner deserves, it is about how the rules apply. The runner hits the ball and is advancing. The catcher is trying to field the ball. Did the runner do anything that hampered the catcher? No, so no interference. Did the catcher do anything to hamper the runner? Yes, he contacted him from behind, obstruction. The obstruction causes the ball to be dead so no out for the ball hitting him.

[carolinablue]

The argument for OBS seems to be all about what the runner deserves, rather that what rules apply. There's certainly a time and place for that. I wouldn't use that line of thinking here, but I think I understand where you coming from.

It is not about what the runner deserves, it is about how the rules apply. The runner hits the ball and is advancing. The catcher is trying to field the ball. Did the runner do anything that hampered the catcher? No, so no interference. Did the catcher do anything to hamper the runner? Yes, he contacted him from behind, obstruction. The obstruction causes the ball to be dead so no out for the ball hitting him.

But the F2 has the right of way here and OBS. must be flagrant. That's my hold up on that. And as far as the guys saying you can't ignore the touched ball because of 7.09(k) but would kill the ball and call OBS, I don't see that. If you are going to apply 7.09(k) don't you have to apply the entire rule which is the runner is out for INT. and the ball is dead. The way I see it, it is either straight OBS. or it's nothing.

[basejester]

It is not about what the runner deserves, it is about how the rules apply. The runner hits the ball and is advancing. The catcher is trying to field the ball. Did the runner do anything that hampered the catcher? No, so no interference. Did the catcher do anything to hamper the runner? Yes, he contacted him from behind, obstruction. The obstruction causes the ball to be dead so no out for the ball hitting him.

The bold statement makes it not obstruction by rule.

There's just no way to call obstruction in this play using this standard.

“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.

You can't have obstruction here without intent.

[mstaylor]

You can absolutely have obstruction without intent. Whether to call it in this case is a matter of you umpiring, and sometimes you just have to do that. Interference is almost a no go here unless the runner does something unusual to draw it. To properly umpire this play you have to into account several things:

1. Proximity to the plate

2. Actions of the BR

3. Actions of catcher

4. If no obs or interference then the ball hitting the BR.

[basejester]

You can absolutely have obstruction without intent.

In general, yes.

Here on this play, when the fielder is fielding the batted ball, the rules absolutely do not support this ruling. I'm not evening saying OBS is a bad ruling. It's just not supported by the rules. The only way you can refute that is with references in the rules.

Whether to call it in this case is a matter of you umpiring, and sometimes you just have to do that.

This is exactly what I mean by trying to be fair instead of looking for rule support.

[noumpere]

But the F2 has the right of way here and OBS. must be flagrant.

If its in the vicinity of the plate then neither one has the right of way and once the batter gets in front of the catcher then the OBS does not need to be flagrant.

[basejester]

If its in the vicinity of the plate then neither one has the right of way and once the batter gets in front of the catcher then the OBS does not need to be flagrant.

The rule makes no distinction but the interpretations give special dispensation to the batter-runner against interference near the plate.

Specifically, Major League Baseball has interpreted Rule 7.09(l) as saying "a catcher trying to field a batted ball that remains in the immediate vicinity of the plate cannot be protected because of the right of the batter-runner to begin his advance to first. Barring an intentional action on the part of either player, contact in this instance is incidental, and is not interference..." (Jaksa/Roder Umpires' Manual, 1997 Edition. Pg. 57).

This says to me, plays that would otherwise be interference are train wrecks due to their proximity to the plate.

The fielder's right-of-way increases as the play develops. There's no special dispensation against obstruction in the proximity of the plate, so no special dispensation can go away when he leaves the area of the plate.

[basejester]

But the F2 has the right of way here and OBS. must be flagrant. That's my hold up on that. And as far as the guys saying you can't ignore the touched ball because of 7.09(k) but would kill the ball and call OBS, I don't see that. If you are going to apply 7.09(k) don't you have to apply the entire rule which is the runner is out for INT. and the ball is dead. The way I see it, it is either straight OBS. or it's nothing.

Yeah, I think they're ruling that the OBS happened first and the ball is dead at that moment. They're ruling it (slightyly)retroactively, motivated by the event after the OBS, but they're ruling the ball dead at the time of the collision, essentially nullifying the kick.