What Would You Do? Part III

[Mr Umpire]

 

I think I have OBS and a runner at first. Seems that F1 already had his shot at fielding the ball when it deflected off his heel and he altered BR's progress toward 1B.

 

As Manny quotes from Wendelstedt, "If, however, the ball is deflected behind him, or if the ball is more than a step and reach from him, he should no longer be considered in the act of fielding the ball."

 

That's how I see it.

 

That the ball is deflected more than a step and a reach away from a fielder doesn't mean that fielder can no longer be allowed to field the ball. It only means that until he gets within range of the ball again, he is potentially at risk of causing or being an obstruction.

 

Say the ball had been hit to F3 on a slowish roller down the line, who charges and somehow kicks it towards the mound, but after seeing that F1 could get the ball and F4 was covering the base, F3 didn't move off the line. Almost certainly that'd result in obstruction by F3. On the same play the ball simply gets past F3 who overruns the ball but loops around to try and pick it up and then results in a similar situation to the video: F3 (instead of F1 in the video) picking the ball up as BR gets to the same spot. F3 losses the protection of being in the act of fielding the ball when it got past him, but he regains it when he comes back within a step and a reach of the ball once more. The only possible exception I can think of would be if a second fielder was also in the vicinity, and you judged that other fielder to be in the act of fielding the ball - only one fielder can have that protection at any one time.

 

Take the obstruction calls here to an extreme situation. Ball's deflected off a fielder, and BR - having reached 1B safely - now happens to be closer to the ball than any other fielder decides to shadow the ball, essentially jogging, then walking, then standing over the ball. He can do that to allow R1 (and any other runners) the chance to advance more than they otherwise would because as soon as the fielder gets close the BR can initiate the obstruction call, because the fielder can no longer be in the act of fielding the ball.

 

No. The runner still has to run the bases.  If you judge he altered his running and not the fielder caused it, then nothing is to be called.  He wasn't obstructed at that point.

 

Also, this is a completely altered situation with "What ifs".  This play is OBS in all codes.  Once it deflected beyond "step and a reach", the original fielder cannot be in the "act of fielding" again on the same play.  He lost it until he comes in possession of the ball.  Or, he is receiving a throw from another fielder.  The only way you have no OBS is if you judge F1 had the ball before BR altered his running b/c of F1. 

[Texas Manny]

 

 

I think I have OBS and a runner at first. Seems that F1 already had his shot at fielding the ball when it deflected off his heel and he altered BR's progress toward 1B.

 

As Manny quotes from Wendelstedt, "If, however, the ball is deflected behind him, or if the ball is more than a step and reach from him, he should no longer be considered in the act of fielding the ball."

 

That's how I see it.

 

That the ball is deflected more than a step and a reach away from a fielder doesn't mean that fielder can no longer be allowed to field the ball. It only means that until he gets within range of the ball again, he is potentially at risk of causing or being an obstruction.

 

Say the ball had been hit to F3 on a slowish roller down the line, who charges and somehow kicks it towards the mound, but after seeing that F1 could get the ball and F4 was covering the base, F3 didn't move off the line. Almost certainly that'd result in obstruction by F3. On the same play the ball simply gets past F3 who overruns the ball but loops around to try and pick it up and then results in a similar situation to the video: F3 (instead of F1 in the video) picking the ball up as BR gets to the same spot. F3 losses the protection of being in the act of fielding the ball when it got past him, but he regains it when he comes back within a step and a reach of the ball once more. The only possible exception I can think of would be if a second fielder was also in the vicinity, and you judged that other fielder to be in the act of fielding the ball - only one fielder can have that protection at any one time.

 

Take the obstruction calls here to an extreme situation. Ball's deflected off a fielder, and BR - having reached 1B safely - now happens to be closer to the ball than any other fielder decides to shadow the ball, essentially jogging, then walking, then standing over the ball. He can do that to allow R1 (and any other runners) the chance to advance more than they otherwise would because as soon as the fielder gets close the BR can initiate the obstruction call, because the fielder can no longer be in the act of fielding the ball.

 

No. The runner still has to run the bases.  If you judge he altered his running and not the fielder caused it, then nothing is to be called.  He wasn't obstructed at that point.

 

Also, this is a completely altered situation with "What ifs".  This play is OBS in all codes.  Once it deflected beyond "step and a reach", the original fielder cannot be in the "act of fielding" again on the same play.  He lost it until he comes in possession of the ball.  Or, he is receiving a throw from another fielder.  The only way you have no OBS is if you judge F1 had the ball before BR altered his running b/c of F1. 

 

This is not consistent with the professional interpretation as put out by Wendelstedt's Umpire School:

 

"Even a fielder who deflects a batted ball, and must chase after it in order to retrieve it, may re-establish himself as in the act of fielding the ball as long as he is within a step and reach from the ball, no longer chasing after it, and the umpire adjudges he is making a legitimate and immediate play."

 

The original fielder can re-establish his protection and "act of fielding" on the same play.

[umpstu]

Manny, how far can he chase the ball. I have obstruction on this.

[Texas Manny]

Manny, how far can he chase the ball. I have obstruction on this.

What difference does the distance he has to chase it make? The key is when he is within a step and a reach and in the umpires judgment he is making a legitimate and immediate play. The pitcher who muffed the first attempt, was in the act of fielding the ball, and throwing to first when the contact occurred, and is entitled to protection under the "act of fielding the ball." Because that, and the runner, all arrived at the same time, it fits the exceptions under the interpretation given by Hunter, hence, it's "nothing."

[umpstu]

And if you think we're goofy, you guys should read the comments on that youtube page. Priceless.

[afaber12]

Manny, how far can he chase the ball. I have obstruction on this.

He can chase the ball as far as he needs to.

 

The only thing I can see at this stage is that though the manual Manny has quoted is generally an accepted source, it's not the rule book and is "only" a way of interpreting it. So maybe, MAYBE that interpretation is wrong.

 

But I try to be a scientific person. I take the best data I can, and come up with the best way of understanding it I can. When that idea is proven wrong, or at least incomplete, I come up with a new one. When someone shows me a better way, I accept it. I know these discussions are meant to be what would you do based on your existing knowledge, rather than being who can look up the rule book and manuals fastest, but where's the reference that shows a fielder only gets one bite at the cherry? Actually, that shows he gets one bite except when he doesn't?

 

Given the ball was moving towards BR, F1 was within a step and a reach of the ball before he was in that same range if the line. There's nothing that says he's got to give way to a runner when he's fielding the ball, but there is that says he can't be called for obstruction when he is fielding the ball.

[Texas Manny]

And if you think we're goofy, you guys should read the comments on that youtube page. Priceless.

I don't think we're goofy. Dang, we are all geniuses compared to the priceless experts on Youtube!

[umpstu]

 

And if you think we're goofy, you guys should read the comments on that youtube page. Priceless.

I don't think we're goofy. Dang, we are all geniuses compared to the priceless experts on Youtube!

 

Those remind me of the comments concerning Jim Joyce's obstruction call. Some, especially a guy in Northern California claiming to be a Div 1 umpire, kept saying that the third baseman was still in the act of fielding the ball when it was 40 feet past him. HUH?

[JaxRolo]

Manny, You saying that a fielder can kick the ball around all over the field and always be within a step and reach? I don't see it.

[Texas Manny]

 

 

And if you think we're goofy, you guys should read the comments on that youtube page. Priceless.

I don't think we're goofy. Dang, we are all geniuses compared to the priceless experts on Youtube!

 

Those remind me of the comments concerning Jim Joyce's obstruction call. Some, especially a guy in Northern California claiming to be a Div 1 umpire, kept saying that the third baseman was still in the act of fielding the ball when it was 40 feet past him. HUH?

 

Didn't you know that Rule 7.06 (Z) says that the fielder is still in the act of fielding the ball when the ball is within 50 feet of his approximate location?

[umpstu]

 

Manny, how far can he chase the ball. I have obstruction on this.

He can chase the ball as far as he needs to.

 

The only thing I can see at this stage is that though the manual Manny has quoted is generally an accepted source, it's not the rule book and is "only" a way of interpreting it. So maybe, MAYBE that interpretation is wrong.

 

But I try to be a scientific person. I take the best data I can, and come up with the best way of understanding it I can. When that idea is proven wrong, or at least incomplete, I come up with a new one. When someone shows me a better way, I accept it. I know these discussions are meant to be what would you do based on your existing knowledge, rather than being who can look up the rule book and manuals fastest, but where's the reference that shows a fielder only gets one bite at the cherry? Actually, that shows he gets one bite except when he doesn't?

 

Given the ball was moving towards BR, F1 was within a step and a reach of the ball before he was in that same range if the line. There's nothing that says he's got to give way to a runner when he's fielding the ball, but there is that says he can't be called for obstruction when he is fielding the ball.

 

Nothing to do with your comment. Have you umpired in the states and , if so, how does the ball there compare? I have a friend who plays professional for the Pert Heat. Umpired him in high school ball many moons ago. He actually made it to the majors with the Yankees.

[Texas Manny]

Manny, You saying that a fielder can kick the ball around all over the field and always be within a step and reach? I don't see it.

There is a huge difference between a ricochet, which is an independent of the fielder, and then kicking the ball, which is dependent on the fielder.

 

Upon looking at the video several more times, it does appear that he attempted to stop the ball going up the middle by moving his foot back to block it. To that end he successfully did, but the ball glanced off of him, to which he then tried to properly field the ball on the foul line.

 

Your idea of a player kicking the ball all over the field is not plausible, and even if he did do it, there would come a point where the umpire(s) would and could effectively argue that the acts were intentional and therefore no protection would be offered. No one on the field is that clumsy.

[alex7]

 

Manny, You saying that a fielder can kick the ball around all over the field and always be within a step and reach? I don't see it.

There is a huge difference between a ricochet, which is an independent of the fielder, and then kicking the ball, which is dependent on the fielder.

 

Upon looking at the video several more times, it does appear that he attempted to stop the ball going up the middle by moving his foot back to block it. To that end he successfully did, but the ball glanced off of him, to which he then tried to properly field the ball on the foul line.

 

Your idea of a player kicking the ball all over the field is not plausible, and even if he did do it, there would come a point where the umpire(s) would and could effectively argue that the acts were intentional and therefore no protection would be offered. No one on the field is that clumsy.

 

 

I have never seen (doesn't mean it doesn't exist) the rule books differentiate between a deflection and a kick of the ball.  Or even a deflection and an error.  Too much gray area looking for intent in that quick of a situation.  Where did you see this differentiation? 

[scrounge]

OBS, a misplayed ball and a fielder obstructing the runner without the ball WAY more than a step and a reach from the initial misplay.

[Replacematt]

With one exception, any time either a fielder and/or runner are hindered while the ball is still in batted-ball status, it is an infraction. You just have to figure out who did it.

[Texas Manny]

OBS, a misplayed ball and a fielder obstructing the runner without the ball WAY more than a step and a reach from the initial misplay.

I think you need to go back and play the video again.

[Dannytheman]

OK, you all argue.  I have a trainwreck. Start the next 1/2 inning.

[Scratch Franzeo]

I've got an out.

Looks to me as if F1 was making a play on the ball at te time if contact.

[Platejob29]

I've got type A obstruction. The first time I watched the video I couldn't make it out too well and I had nothing. After going back and watching it again and getting a better visual on it I've got obstruction. F1 had his chance to make a clean play on the ball and booted it. He then got in the way of the BR while trying to run after the ball. The BR makes contact with F1 before F1 has the ball. Also very important to note that F1 was chasing after his own deflection and not the deflection of another fielder. A simpler way to look at it is had F1 not made contact with the BR or been in the BRs way he wouldn't have been able to get him out. It's often easier to think about the advantage vs disadvantage factor of a play to get the correct ruling rather than over thinking it and tricking your self into the wrong call.

[afaber12]

I've got type A obstruction. The first time I watched the video I couldn't make it out too well and I had nothing. After going back and watching it again and getting a better visual on it I've got obstruction. F1 had his chance to make a clean play on the ball and booted it. He then got in the way of the BR while trying to run after the ball. The BR makes contact with F1 before F1 has the ball. Also very important to note that F1 was chasing after his own deflection and not the deflection of another fielder. A simpler way to look at it is had F1 not made contact with the BR or been in the BRs way he wouldn't have been able to get him out. It's often easier to think about the advantage vs disadvantage factor of a play to get the correct ruling rather than over thinking it and tricking your self into the wrong call.

 

I understand the idea of the advantage v disadvantage thought process. And I'm sure most if not all of us have called a play in a game based on that principle rather than the absolute, black and white, letter perfect rule book application - the neighbourhood play and home plate collisions where the catcher holds the ball but may or may not have actually tagged the runner come to mind. But I don't really understand why so many people seem to think that there's a difference between a lack of obstruction when a fielder is making their first attempt at fielding the ball and when its a subsequent attempt.

 

Presumably the people who believe obstruction should be called here would not think so if it was F3 who was attempting to pick up the ball on the line and got tangled with BR instead of F1. Likewise you probably wouldn't call obstruction if the ball had been hit along the line (and picked up in fair territory rather than foul for obvious reasons) and was played at by F1, F2 or F3. Unless I misread it, at least one of you would not call it if a fielder had misplayed it but it had stayed within a step and a reach of the fielder, followed by an otherwise similar entanglement. Yes it kicked away from F1 outside of the range that he could be considered to still be in the act of fielding the ball. And yes, the comment for the definition of obstruction says "After a fielder has made an attempt to field a ball and missed, he can no longer be in the “act of fielding†the ball." But what constitutes a "miss" and what is a successful "field" of the ball? I'd say there's an argument that F1 in this case was successful in fielding the ball, based on the fact that he stuck his foot and successfully intercepted the ball with it, preventing it from getting past him and possibly into the outfield. Put it another way: assuming the deflection had gone to the third base line instead, resulting in BR reaching first without incident, would F1 be charged an error? Probably not. He'd literally not yet had a "chance" to field the ball.

 

If you want to read it strictly - even assuming the intent of that statement is to only apply until the next pitch/pick-off attempt/etc then all fielders are "reset" and can be considered to field the ball again, rather than applying for the rest of the game - then if a fielder misses, even at a later stage when the ball is thrown to him to make a play (say diving F4 misses the ball up the middle, fielded by F8 who throws back to F4 at the base to try and catch BR extending to a double) he can't then be considered to be fielding the ball at that point.

 

I can't see how the intent of that sentence is anything other than trying to establish that a fielder attempting to field the ball can't be considered to be fielding the ball indefinitely. There's a finite window in which the fielder has the opportunity to attempt to make a play without risk of being ruled to have obstructed a runner. However there's no limit on how many times such a window might be opened.

[Kevin_K]

Let's not forget..... we all are viewing this from the comfort of our computer stations.

 

I stand by my initial reaction of OBS because that's the most likely instantaneous reaction I would have had on the field. I would even go so far to say that I would likely entertain a coversation with one or both HCs and a conversation with my partner.

 

BTW, my chair is very comforatble.

[basejester]

That the ball is deflected more than a step and a reach away from a fielder doesn't mean that fielder can no longer be allowed to field the ball. It only means that until he gets within range of the ball again, he is potentially at risk of causing or being an obstruction.

Wendelstedt clearly says that a particular fielder may be protected again.   

 

However, OBR itself and the MLBUM kind of suggest that a particular fielder gets only one protected shot at fielding the ball. 

 

2.0 - Obstruction

. . .

After a fielder has made an attempt to field a ball and missed, he can no longer be in the “act of fielding†the ball.

MLBUM p. 47 & PBUC p. 84

With bases loaded, batter hits a sharp ground ball that deflects off of the shortstop and starts to roll away from him. As the the shortstop starts to go after the ball, the runner from second collides with the shortstop.

Ruling:

After the ball deflects off the shortstop, if the ball is within the fielder's immediate reach, the runner must avoid the fielder, and if contact occurs under those circumstances, interference shall be called and the runner declared out.  (In this situation the fielder is still considered "in the act of fielding" the ball and has not "missed" as described in the Comment to the Official Baseball Rule 2.00 (Obstruction).)  However, if the ball is not within reach of the fielder after it deflects off the fielder (i.e., the fielder must chase after the ball), the fielder must then avoid the runner, and if contact occurs under those circumstances, obstruction shall be called under Official Baseball Rule 7.06(b).

[Mr Umpire]

Just a case where an "expert" doesn't agree with another.  I will admit when this video first came about, before having a lengthy conversation about this play and learning of the MLBUM interp and NCAA ruling, I agreed with re-establishing the protection.  But, that is not the case as shown by the MLBUM interp.

[scrounge]

 

OBS, a misplayed ball and a fielder obstructing the runner without the ball WAY more than a step and a reach from the initial misplay.

I think you need to go back and play the video again.

 

 

Thanks for the advice...I did and I stand by my post. Perhaps you should re-read the manual interpretation you posted - I believe you are mis-interpreting it and not fully applying it correctly. And in any case, Wendelstedt is a great source - but it's not an official or definitive one. If the MLBUM and PBUC manuals say a deflection counts as a fielding attempt, then I think that trumps WUM.

 

 

As an aside, I totally understand if it wasn't your intent, but saying "you need to go back and play the video again" rather than "I disagree" or something comes across as a bit condescending. Just my $0.02.

[Texas Manny]

 

 

OBS, a misplayed ball and a fielder obstructing the runner without the ball WAY more than a step and a reach from the initial misplay.

I think you need to go back and play the video again.

 

 

Thanks for the advice...I did and I stand by my post. Perhaps you should re-read the manual interpretation you posted - I believe you are mis-interpreting it and not fully applying it correctly. And in any case, Wendelstedt is a great source - but it's not an official or definitive one. If the MLBUM and PBUC manuals say a deflection counts as a fielding attempt, then I think that trumps WUM.

 

 

As an aside, I totally understand if it wasn't your intent, but saying "you need to go back and play the video again" rather than "I disagree" or something comes across as a bit condescending. Just my $0.02.

 

Yeah, that did come across condescending. My bad. I took the WAY portion to mean that you were claiming obstruction occurred well before he got the ball. That's why I said go back and watch the video.

 

I should have been clearer and not so, well, you said it best: condescending. My apologies Scrounge.