Interference, Obstruction, or Nothing?

[sdix00]

R1, one out.  F3 is holding runner.  Batter hits a fly ball down the right field line behind first base.  F3 and R1 collide as F3 turns to give chase to the ball and R1 is returning to 1B.  The ball falls in fair and F3 (at all times the nearest player to the ball) throws to 2B for an easy out.  What is the call?

[Rich Ives]

Int on R1. Dead ball. R1 out. B-R to 1B.

 

The result is what happened anyhow but that doesn't matter.

[noumpere]

Assuming F3 was the protected fielder I agree with Rich on the ruling.

[johnnyg08]

Does it matter if the batted ball lands foul in terms of who is out?

 

I know in the OP we have a fair batted ball.

 

I also have interference on this play.  

[noumpere]

Does it matter if the batted ball lands foul in terms of who is out?

 

I know in the OP we have a fair batted ball.

 

I also have interference on this play.  

In terms of who is out no it doesn't matter.

[BigSimonia]

Doesn't it matter if at the time of the collision the ball has passed F3?  The OP says F3 has "turned to give chase" to the ball at the time of the collision.  Once the ball has passed a fringe infielder who are you protecting?

[noumpere]

Doesn't it matter if at the time of the collision the ball has passed F3?  The OP says F3 has "turned to give chase" to the ball at the time of the collision.  Once the ball has passed a fringe infielder who are you protecting?

You do recognize that it was a fly ball, right?  Now if it had been a grounder then we'd have a different ruling of course.

[maven]

Does it matter if the batted ball lands foul in terms of who is out?

 

Fair/foul would not determine who is out (R1 is doing the interfering), but it could change how I rule INT.

 

If fair, then I will need to judge whether F3 is the protected fielder. If so, INT, otherwise, nothing (play on).

 

If foul, then I will need to judge whether F3 has a play on the ball. If so, INT, otherwise, nothing (foul ball).

[maven]

You do recognize that it was a fly ball, right?  Now if it had been a grounder then we'd have a different ruling of course.

noumpere, are you suggesting that F3 cannot receive protection when fielding a fly ball?

[BigSimonia]

Clearly F3 may be entitled to protection when fielding a fly ball, just like fielding a bounding ball.  My question was if he has "turned to give chase" to the fly ball, he is now chasing after the batted ball.  As I understand the rule for protecting a fielder, that fact that he is in the process of giving chase to a batted ball could impact the interference/no interference decision.  If F3 is turning to give chase to a fly ball that is clearly uncatachable by him (but which he is in the best position to field after it lands in fair territory) would that alter the decision?  I guess I'm hung up on the description in the original post that F3 is chasing after the batted ball and wondering if that makes a difference.

[Rich Ives]

Clearly F3 may be entitled to protection when fielding a fly ball, just like fielding a bounding ball.  My question was if he has "turned to give chase" to the fly ball, he is now chasing after the batted ball.  As I understand the rule for protecting a fielder, that fact that he is in the process of giving chase to a batted ball could impact the interference/no interference decision.  If F3 is turning to give chase to a fly ball that is clearly uncatachable by him (but which he is in the best position to field after it lands in fair territory) would that alter the decision?  I guess I'm hung up on the description in the original post that F3 is chasing after the batted ball and wondering if that makes a difference.

 

A protected fielder making a play on a batted ball is ALWAYS protected if he has a play on the ball. On one popped up behind the base he pretty much will always have a play on it.

[noumpere]

 

You do recognize that it was a fly ball, right?  Now if it had been a grounder then we'd have a different ruling of course.

noumpere, are you suggesting that F3 cannot receive protection when fielding a fly ball?

 

Not even close to suggesting that.  Just suggesting that "turned to chase" generally applies to grounders or misplayed balls and not to fly balls.

[mstaylor]

I picture it as a ball behind first that he is going back on. He certainly has protection on that.

Sent from my C771 using Tapatalk 2

[BigSimonia]

I picture it as a ball behind first that he is going back on. He certainly hey protection on that.

Sent from my C771 using Tapatalk 2

If that's the scenario, then I certainly agree.  Not what I initially envisioned - I pictured it as F3 running out after a fly ball, trying to run it down (i.e., "chasing" after it)

[BalkHawk]

I got nothing.

UNLESS, this was a very low pop-up, almost a soft, arching line drive.

For a slow-developing pop-up, such as one to which an infielder must "turn and give chase", the fielder has no protection as he is positioning himself to field the ball; typically, until the fly ball reaches its apex.

This play requires an umpire's judgement. Was F3 preparing to glove a rapidly approaching ball, or rather, going after a fly ball?

[Rich Ives]

 

I picture it as a ball behind first that he is going back on. He certainly hey protection on that.

Sent from my C771 using Tapatalk 2

If that's the scenario, then I certainly agree.  Not what I initially envisioned - I pictured it as F3 running out after a fly ball, trying to run it down (i.e., "chasing" after it)

 

 

That IS making a play.  You can't just protect them on something hit right at them.

[carolinablue]

Infielders run balls down in the shallow outfield all the time so I don't see what the hang-up is on the " turn and chase" phrase. It sounds like a fairly routine play to me. If you think he doesn't have a chance then don't protect him but I'm giving him the benifit of the doubt if it's borderline.

[mstaylor]

The very reason the interference rule is there is to keep a fielder that is watching a ball from being run over. 

[BalkHawk]

The very reason the interference rule is there is to keep a fielder that is watching a ball from being run over. 

 

Still, this can be incidental. 

[maven]

 

The very reason the interference rule is there is to keep a fielder that is watching a ball from being run over. 

 

Still, this can be incidental. 

 

 

Can you provide an example of incidental contact between a runner and a protected fielder?

 

When I explain these INT calls to coaches, I use the expression "absolute right of way." As far as I can imagine prior to some coffee, runner contact with a protected fielder is always INT, and never incidental.

[mstaylor]

 

 

The very reason the interference rule is there is to keep a fielder that is watching a ball from being run over. 

 

Still, this can be incidental. 

 

 

Can you provide an example of incidental contact between a runner and a protected fielder?

 

When I explain these INT calls to coaches, I use the expression "absolute right of way." As far as I can imagine prior to some coffee, runner contact with a protected fielder is always INT, and never incidental.

 

I'll wait for that answer, I can't imagine incidental contact. 

[BigSimonia]

Infielders run balls down in the shallow outfield all the time so I don't see what the hang-up is on the " turn and chase" phrase. It sounds like a fairly routine play to me. If you think he doesn't have a chance then don't protect him but I'm giving him the benifit of the doubt if it's borderline.

Yeah - sometime you just gotta umpire

[BigSimonia]

The very reason the interference rule is there is to keep a fielder that is watching a ball from being run over. 

"A fielder that is watching a ball" is not necessarily protected.  And infielder running out to chase down a line drive is not protected regardless of what he's watching.  As the umpire you have to take a several conditions into account in determining whether or not to protect a fielder.  "Watching a ball" ain't one of them

[UmpJM]

BigSimonia,

 

 

The very reason the interference rule is there is to keep a fielder that is watching a ball from being run over. 

"A fielder that is watching a ball" is not necessarily protected.  And infielder running out to chase down a line drive is not protected regardless of what he's watching.  As the umpire you have to take a several conditions into account in determining whether or not to protect a fielder.  "Watching a ball" ain't one of them

 

 

With regard to the bolded part above, of course he is "protected".

 

The "chasing" exception you allude to only applies when he has already had an opportunity to field a batted ball, but he was unsuccessful and the ball "got away" from him by more than "a step and a reach". If he THEN goes chasing after that "loose ball" he does so without protection.

 

JM

[BalkHawk]

Can you provide an example of incidental contact between a runner and a protected field?

No, I cannot.

More to the point, though, I can give an example of a slow developing play where the fielder who will be protected is not protected at the time of incidental contact.

Towering pop-fly. Same incidental contact as in OP. Finally, the ball apexes and heads back to Earth, where F3 has the best play on the ball. Only now, is he given priority (and protection).