Interference, Obstruction, or Nothing?

[carolinablue]

 

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).

 

 

 

He should have priority the whole time. If he is interfered with prior to the balls apex, it may not be obvious because he's not going to get to the ball. I guess sometimes we may need to let the play develop to determin that F3 was the "man" the entire time.

[Dragon29]

As usual, these kinds of plays are HTBT, but from the OP, it seems like INT to me.

[noumpere]

 

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).

 

Someone is protected the whole time.  If F3 is going to have the best chance to get the ball after the contact, then it sure makes sense to me that he was likley protected before the contact.

 

Now I do agree that who the protected fielder is can change but I dont think your example is particularly good.

[BalkHawk]

Someone is protected the whole time.

Cite your source, if you please.

[BigSimonia]

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

Here's my source - Jacksa / Roder, page 99: 

 

"A fielder is protected if he is trying to field a batted ball, and he is given priority to field it, and he is not chasing a deflected or missed fiellding try,  These concepts are defined as follows:  A fielder is "trying to field" (or "in the act of fielding") a ball when (i) he is positioning himself for the purpose of trying to glove a rapidly approaching ball.

 

The italics are in the J/R (and you know what that means).  The bold is my added emphasis

[UmpJM]

BigSimonia,

 

That's a good cite.

 

In the sitch we are discussing, has the ball been "deflected or missed"?

 

If the ball is hit in the air, and the fielder has to run towards the outfield fence (because the ball is going to go over his head) in order to complete his attempt to field it (assuming he's got a reasonable chance to field it), he does not lose his protection because of that fact.

 

The rules provide the fielder an unhindered initial opportunity to field a batted ball. The J/R interp doesn't change that.

 

Initially, the ball IS "rapidly (or perhaps not so rapidly) approaching" him. He sees he has to go "back" to field it, and does. He's protected from contact with a runner as he does so to position himself for the purpose of fielding the ball.

 

If he deflects the ball or it otherwise "gets away" from him (more than a "step and a reach" away by interpretation), he has lost his protection.

 

Make sense?

 

JM

[BigSimonia]

BigSimonia,

 

That's a good cite.

 

In the sitch we are discussing, has the ball been "deflected or missed"?

 

If the ball is hit in the air, and the fielder has to run towards the outfield fence (because the ball is going to go over his head) in order to complete his attempt to field it (assuming he's got a reasonable chance to field it), he does not lose his protection because of that fact.

 

The rules provide the fielder an unhindered initial opportunity to field a batted ball. The J/R interp doesn't change that.

 

Initially, the ball IS "rapidly (or perhaps not so rapidly) approaching" him. He sees he has to go "back" to field it, and does. He's protected from contact with a runner as he does so to position himself for the purpose of fielding the ball.

 

If he deflects the ball or it otherwise "gets away" from him (more than a "step and a reach" away by interpretation), he has lost his protection.

 

Make sense?

 

JM

I completely agree - but the bolded part of your analysis is key.  I think you'd agree that if the fielder is going out with no legitimate opportunity to make a play on the ball (i.e., is just chasing a loose ball) he is not protected and if he, under that circumstance, collides with the runnr, he (the fielder) has committed obstruction

[maven]

The protected fielder is entitled to the benefit of any doubt and then some regarding whether he has a reasonable chance to field the ball.

[noumpere]

 

I completely agree - but the bolded part of your analysis is key.  I think you'd agree that if the fielder is going out with no legitimate opportunity to make a play on the ball (i.e., is just chasing a loose ball) he is not protected and if he, under that circumstance, collides with the runnr, he (the fielder) has committed obstruction

 

 

In that case F9 is probably the protected fielder and if R1 collides with F9 then we have a you tube viral video.

 

(okay -- F4 might be protected instead of F9)

[UmpJM]

 

BigSimonia,

 

That's a good cite.

 

In the sitch we are discussing, has the ball been "deflected or missed"?

 

If the ball is hit in the air, and the fielder has to run towards the outfield fence (because the ball is going to go over his head) in order to complete his attempt to field it (assuming he's got a reasonable chance to field it), he does not lose his protection because of that fact.

 

The rules provide the fielder an unhindered initial opportunity to field a batted ball. The J/R interp doesn't change that.

 

Initially, the ball IS "rapidly (or perhaps not so rapidly) approaching" him. He sees he has to go "back" to field it, and does. He's protected from contact with a runner as he does so to position himself for the purpose of fielding the ball.

 

If he deflects the ball or it otherwise "gets away" from him (more than a "step and a reach" away by interpretation), he has lost his protection.

 

Make sense?

 

JM

I completely agree - but the bolded part of your analysis is key.  I think you'd agree that if the fielder is going out with no legitimate opportunity to make a play on the ball (i.e., is just chasing a loose ball) he is not protected and if he, under that circumstance, collides with the runnr, he (the fielder) has committed obstruction

 

 

BigSimonia,

 

Concur. If F3 starts to "go back" on a fly ball to F9 and collides with the R1, I've likely got obstruction.

 

I still wouldn't use the "loose ball" terminology though (which I'll grant is merely a semantic issue) because the interpretation manuals are pretty consistent in using that term to describe a ball which the fielder has already had the opportunity to field,  but he missed or deflected it.

 

JM

[BigSimonia]

"However,

 

 

 

BigSimonia,

 

That's a good cite.

 

In the sitch we are discussing, has the ball been "deflected or missed"?

 

If the ball is hit in the air, and the fielder has to run towards the outfield fence (because the ball is going to go over his head) in order to complete his attempt to field it (assuming he's got a reasonable chance to field it), he does not lose his protection because of that fact.

 

The rules provide the fielder an unhindered initial opportunity to field a batted ball. The J/R interp doesn't change that.

 

Initially, the ball IS "rapidly (or perhaps not so rapidly) approaching" him. He sees he has to go "back" to field it, and does. He's protected from contact with a runner as he does so to position himself for the purpose of fielding the ball.

 

If he deflects the ball or it otherwise "gets away" from him (more than a "step and a reach" away by interpretation), he has lost his protection.

 

Make sense?

 

JM

I completely agree - but the bolded part of your analysis is key.  I think you'd agree that if the fielder is going out with no legitimate opportunity to make a play on the ball (i.e., is just chasing a loose ball) he is not protected and if he, under that circumstance, collides with the runnr, he (the fielder) has committed obstruction

 

 

BigSimonia,

 

Concur. If F3 starts to "go back" on a fly ball to F9 and collides with the R1, I've likely got obstruction.

 

I still wouldn't use the "loose ball" terminology though (which I'll grant is merely a semantic issue) because the interpretation manuals are pretty consistent in using that term to describe a ball which the fielder has already had the opportunity to field,  but he missed or deflected it.

 

JM

 

Check out MLBUM Interpretation No. 43(5) (which I cited earlier) which specifically refers to a fielder having to have "a legitimate play on the ball" in order to be protected; and diferentiates that from "merely moving in the direction of a loose ball" (in which case he is not protected) and in that situation if the fielder makes contact with a runner "then obstruction is called under Official Baseball Rule 7.06(b).". 

[UmpJM]

BigSimonia,

 

You mean the play where the F1 has had an opportunity to field the ball but it DEFLECTED off of him and then the F4 attempts to get the ball? That was pretty much my point in the post you quote above, so I have no idea why you used the word "however".

 

I don't know in which thread you think you had previously cited MLBUM Play 43(5), but it certainly isn't this one.

 

JM

[jkumpire]

 

 

 

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. 

 

 

Mr. Taylor,

 

If the shooter makes the jump shot the incidental contact is ignored and play on.

 

If the offense maintains the ball and improvees their position the incidental contact is ignored unless the challenge deserves a card!

 

I thought you knew this.....

[BigSimonia]

BigSimonia,

 

You mean the play where the F1 has had an opportunity to field the ball but it DEFLECTED off of him and then the F4 attempts to get the ball? That was pretty much my point in the post you quote above, so I have no idea why you used the word "however".

 

I don't know in which thread you think you had previously cited MLBUM Play 43(5), but it certainly isn't this one.

 

JM

My apologies. You're right:  I cited MLBUM 43 in another thread discussing obstruction. 

[mstaylor]

If you ever saw me play basketball I assure you I never had incidental contact. I played full contact.

Sent from my C771 using Tapatalk 2