What Would You Do? Part III

[Jocko]

@scrounge @Texas Manny

Way to handle it, guys. Great game mgmt.

I'm personally sick of all the flaming n sniping. This is how its done. No mods needed.

[MidAmUmp]

Take this play a couple steps further...

 

 

 

Let's say the 1st baseman is the one fielding the ball.  Would you protect him?

 

 

 

If the ball were to hit the pitcher in a more vulnerable place and it was clearly obvious he wasn't trying to deflect or knock down the ball, would you would protect him?

[Mr Umpire]

Yes.  I would protect F3 as long as the runner has reasonable time to avoid the deflection and the fielder reacting to the deflection.  The runner cannot be expected to know where the ball will deflect as soon as it is deflected.

 

No.  I would not protect F1 ever again on the same deflected ball regardless of how he deflected it.  A deflection is a deflection regardless how it got deflected.  It doesn't have to be intentional.

[mstaylor]

If the F1 deflects it and the F3 attempts to play it, then yes he is protected. <br /><br />Sent from my C771 using Tapatalk 2<br /><br />

[Jocko]

No rulebooks here at work but if memory serves me correctly, ball deflected by one fielder and another has a chance to legitimately field it....most definitely protected. Cover by rule. Someone help me out here with the citation.

[basejester]

No rulebooks here at work but if memory serves me correctly, ball deflected by one fielder and another has a chance to legitimately field it....most definitely protected. Cover by rule. Someone help me out here with the citation.

Professional Baseball Umpire Corp Umpire Manual 

7.31 Obstruction and Interference Plays - Approved Rulings

 

Play 5: With a runner on first base, the batter hits a line drive back to the pitcher which deflects off of his glove and rolls toward the second baseman.  As the second baseman is attempting to field the ball, the runner from first collides with the second baseman.

 

Ruling 5:  In the judgement of the umpire if the second baseman has a legitimate play on the ball, the runner from first is called out for interference.  The ball is dead at the moment of interference, and the batter-runner is awarded first base (provided the interference was not intentional; if intentional, both runner and batter-runner are declared out).

[afaber12]

 

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).

 

 

There doesn't seem to be an example though of this situation. The highlighted part does talk about the ball deflecting away from and out of reach of the fielder. But its talking about while the ball is still out of reach. Nothing about what happens if the fielder gets back within reach of the ball.

 

I realise my case seems to be weakening, but I'm not prepared to concede defeat just yet.

[JaxRolo]

Take this play a couple steps further...

 

 

 

Let's say the 1st baseman is the one fielding the ball.  Would you protect him?

 

 

 

If the ball were to hit the pitcher in a more vulnerable place and it was clearly obvious he wasn't trying to deflect or knock down the ball, would you would protect him?

 

Yes

 

No

[umpstu]

Ok. Right out of The Rules of Professional Baseball: A Comprehensive Reorganization and Interpretation by Chris Jaska and Rick Roder

A fielder cannot be protected if he is chasing a batted ball that has been deflected or missed. If' however, he is trying to field a ball that has been deflected by another fielder, he can be protected as long as he is not chasing after the ball.

[Replacematt]

Ok. Right out of The Rules of Professional Baseball: A Comprehensive Reorganization and Interpretation by Chris Jaska and Rick Roder

A fielder cannot be protected if he is chasing a batted ball that has been deflected or missed. If' however, he is trying to field a ball that has been deflected by another fielder, he can be protected as long as he is not chasing after the ball.

 

J/R can be incorrect.

[Texas Manny]

From the moment the ball ricocheted off his right foot, (0:05) and then rolled away, the pitcher lost his protection. As soon as he was within a step and reach, he regains his protection. The pitcher, ball, and runner met at the same location at the same time. The pitcher picked the ball up and began his throw when the runner, who was properly in the running lane, made contact (0:09). Under the rules, because each component presented themselves at the same time and no one was physically established or occupied the spot of contact, there is incidental contact and therefore no interference or obstruction. Had the pitcher been firmly planted, then the runner would have to avoid, otherwise it was offensive interference. If the runner already occupied the spot, then the pitcher would have to avoid, otherwise it was obstruction. Neither scenario happened. The fielder was fielding and the runner was running and came together at the same time, therefore, it is incidental contact, "nothing" and the play moves on. Very similar in physics to the catcher/batter scenario that haunted Larry Barnett in the '74 series.

 

The MLB Umpire Interpretations Manual and the Wendelstedt Manual are not in conflict, but the Wendelstedt Manual goes further in detailed description as to the interpretations of the ruling. Since Wendelstedt's is training members for MiLB, I cannot see him teaching one thing, where MiLB and MLB would be saying something different. It is a matter for clarification, and I will attempt to contact MLB offices about this. Either way, as long as a legitimate play is being made on the ball, in the presiding umpires judgment, the pitcher, or any fielder, will regain his protection.

[Replacematt]

The pitcher picked the ball up and began his throw when the runner, who was properly in the running lane, made contact (0:09).

The running lane is irrelevant. Even if he was out of it, the ruling is the same, depending on if the fielder has protection.

The pitcher, ball, and runner met at the same location at the same time. The pitcher picked the ball up and began his throw when the runner, who was properly in the running lane, made contact (0:09). Under the rules, because each component presented themselves at the same time and no one was physically established or occupied the spot of contact, there is incidental contact and therefore no interference or obstruction.

 

Absolutely false. If a fielder has protection and is hindered, it is interference. The rules don't say anything about physical establishment or occupying a spot. This isn't basketball.

[JaxRolo]

From the moment the ball ricocheted off his right foot, (0:05) and then rolled away, the pitcher lost his protection. As soon as he was within a step and reach, he regains his protection. The pitcher, ball, and runner met at the same location at the same time. The pitcher picked the ball up and began his throw when the runner, who was properly in the running lane, made contact (0:09). Under the rules, because each component presented themselves at the same time and no one was physically established or occupied the spot of contact, there is incidental contact and therefore no interference or obstruction. Had the pitcher been firmly planted, then the runner would have to avoid, otherwise it was offensive interference. If the runner already occupied the spot, then the pitcher would have to avoid, otherwise it was obstruction. Neither scenario happened. The fielder was fielding and the runner was running and came together at the same time, therefore, it is incidental contact, "nothing" and the play moves on. Very similar in physics to the catcher/batter scenario that haunted Larry Barnett in the '74 series. The MLB Umpire Interpretations Manual and the Wendelstedt Manual are not in conflict, but the Wendelstedt Manual goes further in detailed description as to the interpretations of the ruling. Since Wendelstedt's is training members for MiLB, I cannot see him teaching one thing, where MiLB and MLB would be saying something different. It is a matter for clarification, and I will attempt to contact MLB offices about this. Either way, as long as a legitimate play is being made on the ball, in the presiding umpires judgment, the pitcher, or any fielder, will regain his protection.

I think that you are reading way to much into some of the rules and interpretations. Making it harder than it needs to be. Keep it simple...

[Texas Manny]

 

The pitcher picked the ball up and began his throw when the runner, who was properly in the running lane, made contact (0:09).

The running lane is irrelevant. Even if he was out of it, the ruling is the same, depending on if the fielder has protection.

The pitcher, ball, and runner met at the same location at the same time. The pitcher picked the ball up and began his throw when the runner, who was properly in the running lane, made contact (0:09). Under the rules, because each component presented themselves at the same time and no one was physically established or occupied the spot of contact, there is incidental contact and therefore no interference or obstruction.

 

Absolutely false. If a fielder has protection and is hindered, it is interference. The rules don't say anything about physical establishment or occupying a spot. This isn't basketball.

 

You are incorrect. Under your argument, the 75 World Series catcher collision with the batter would have been interference. It was nothing. Same premise.

[Texas Manny]

 

From the moment the ball ricocheted off his right foot, (0:05) and then rolled away, the pitcher lost his protection. As soon as he was within a step and reach, he regains his protection. The pitcher, ball, and runner met at the same location at the same time. The pitcher picked the ball up and began his throw when the runner, who was properly in the running lane, made contact (0:09). Under the rules, because each component presented themselves at the same time and no one was physically established or occupied the spot of contact, there is incidental contact and therefore no interference or obstruction. Had the pitcher been firmly planted, then the runner would have to avoid, otherwise it was offensive interference. If the runner already occupied the spot, then the pitcher would have to avoid, otherwise it was obstruction. Neither scenario happened. The fielder was fielding and the runner was running and came together at the same time, therefore, it is incidental contact, "nothing" and the play moves on. Very similar in physics to the catcher/batter scenario that haunted Larry Barnett in the '74 series. The MLB Umpire Interpretations Manual and the Wendelstedt Manual are not in conflict, but the Wendelstedt Manual goes further in detailed description as to the interpretations of the ruling. Since Wendelstedt's is training members for MiLB, I cannot see him teaching one thing, where MiLB and MLB would be saying something different. It is a matter for clarification, and I will attempt to contact MLB offices about this. Either way, as long as a legitimate play is being made on the ball, in the presiding umpires judgment, the pitcher, or any fielder, will regain his protection.

I think that you are reading way to much into some of the rules and interpretations. Making it harder than it needs to be. Keep it simple...

 

I disagree. I'm not reading into anything way too much. Everything there is common sense according to the rules, and it's not being made harder. Either the fielder came first, which causes offensive interference; the runner came first, then it causes defensive obstruction; or they both arrived at the same time and collided, to which it is nothing because it is one of the three exceptions that Wendelstedt quotes. It doesn't get simpler than that.

[Replacematt]

The pitcher picked the ball up and began his throw when the runner, who was properly in the running lane, made contact (0:09).

The running lane is irrelevant. Even if he was out of it, the ruling is the same, depending on if the fielder has protection.

The pitcher, ball, and runner met at the same location at the same time. The pitcher picked the ball up and began his throw when the runner, who was properly in the running lane, made contact (0:09). Under the rules, because each component presented themselves at the same time and no one was physically established or occupied the spot of contact, there is incidental contact and therefore no interference or obstruction.

 

Absolutely false. If a fielder has protection and is hindered, it is interference. The rules don't say anything about physical establishment or occupying a spot. This isn't basketball.

You are incorrect. Under your argument, the 75 World Series catcher collision with the batter would have been interference. It was nothing. Same premise.

That would be the one exception to which I referred. That, and only that, type of hindrance, is explicitly legal. If it were legal anywhere else, they would not have limited the exception to BR/F2.

[Texas Manny]

 

 

 

The pitcher picked the ball up and began his throw when the runner, who was properly in the running lane, made contact (0:09).

The running lane is irrelevant. Even if he was out of it, the ruling is the same, depending on if the fielder has protection.

The pitcher, ball, and runner met at the same location at the same time. The pitcher picked the ball up and began his throw when the runner, who was properly in the running lane, made contact (0:09). Under the rules, because each component presented themselves at the same time and no one was physically established or occupied the spot of contact, there is incidental contact and therefore no interference or obstruction.

 

Absolutely false. If a fielder has protection and is hindered, it is interference. The rules don't say anything about physical establishment or occupying a spot. This isn't basketball.

 

You are incorrect. Under your argument, the 75 World Series catcher collision with the batter would have been interference. It was nothing. Same premise.

 

That would be the one exception to which I referred. That, and only that, type of hindrance, is explicitly legal. If it were legal anywhere else, they would not have limited the exception to BR/F2.

 

It is not limited to just that. There are two other conditions that meet the criteria, and they were posted previously from the Wendelstedt Manual.

[Replacematt]

The pitcher picked the ball up and began his throw when the runner, who was properly in the running lane, made contact (0:09).

The running lane is irrelevant. Even if he was out of it, the ruling is the same, depending on if the fielder has protection.

The pitcher, ball, and runner met at the same location at the same time. The pitcher picked the ball up and began his throw when the runner, who was properly in the running lane, made contact (0:09). Under the rules, because each component presented themselves at the same time and no one was physically established or occupied the spot of contact, there is incidental contact and therefore no interference or obstruction.

 

Absolutely false. If a fielder has protection and is hindered, it is interference. The rules don't say anything about physical establishment or occupying a spot. This isn't basketball.

You are incorrect. Under your argument, the 75 World Series catcher collision with the batter would have been interference. It was nothing. Same premise.

That would be the one exception to which I referred. That, and only that, type of hindrance, is explicitly legal. If it were legal anywhere else, they would not have limited the exception to BR/F2.

It is not limited to just that. There are two other conditions that meet the criteria, and they were posted previously from the Wendelstedt Manual.

The one you are hanging your hat on does not apply to batted balls, but balls that are in possession of fielders. Your argument is that the ball has ceased to be batted, because the ball was in possession of the fielder. However, the hindrance started when the ball was still on the ground, and still in batted-ball status. Exceptions do not apply.

The second "exception" isn't an exception. It delineates the point at which protection ends and obstruction begins.

[Texas Manny]

 

 

 

 

 

The pitcher picked the ball up and began his throw when the runner, who was properly in the running lane, made contact (0:09).

The running lane is irrelevant. Even if he was out of it, the ruling is the same, depending on if the fielder has protection.

The pitcher, ball, and runner met at the same location at the same time. The pitcher picked the ball up and began his throw when the runner, who was properly in the running lane, made contact (0:09). Under the rules, because each component presented themselves at the same time and no one was physically established or occupied the spot of contact, there is incidental contact and therefore no interference or obstruction.

 

Absolutely false. If a fielder has protection and is hindered, it is interference. The rules don't say anything about physical establishment or occupying a spot. This isn't basketball.

 

You are incorrect. Under your argument, the 75 World Series catcher collision with the batter would have been interference. It was nothing. Same premise.

 

That would be the one exception to which I referred. That, and only that, type of hindrance, is explicitly legal. If it were legal anywhere else, they would not have limited the exception to BR/F2.

 

It is not limited to just that. There are two other conditions that meet the criteria, and they were posted previously from the Wendelstedt Manual.

 

The one you are hanging your hat on does not apply to batted balls, but balls that are in possession of fielders. Your argument is that the ball has ceased to be batted, because the ball was in possession of the fielder. However, the hindrance started when the ball was still on the ground, and still in batted-ball status. Exceptions do not apply.

The second "exception" isn't an exception. It delineates the point at which protection ends and obstruction begins.

 

That is not my argument. Where you got that from I do not know. My argument has always been:

 

When there is unintentional contact or a collision with a fielder in possession of a ball and attempting to tag or throwing to another fielder;

 

which is directly from the WUM and what happened.

 

There was no intentional contact. The pitcher was in possession of the ball and throwing to another fielder, aka, the 1st baseman, when the collison occurred.

 

That's nothing. Play on.

 

(I mentioned the placement of the runner in the running lane only so that there was no future question from someone about that. I was simply saying the BR was where he was supposed to be: in the running lane.)

[Replacematt]

The pitcher picked the ball up and began his throw when the runner, who was properly in the running lane, made contact (0:09).

The running lane is irrelevant. Even if he was out of it, the ruling is the same, depending on if the fielder has protection.

The pitcher, ball, and runner met at the same location at the same time. The pitcher picked the ball up and began his throw when the runner, who was properly in the running lane, made contact (0:09). Under the rules, because each component presented themselves at the same time and no one was physically established or occupied the spot of contact, there is incidental contact and therefore no interference or obstruction.

 

Absolutely false. If a fielder has protection and is hindered, it is interference. The rules don't say anything about physical establishment or occupying a spot. This isn't basketball.

You are incorrect. Under your argument, the 75 World Series catcher collision with the batter would have been interference. It was nothing. Same premise.

That would be the one exception to which I referred. That, and only that, type of hindrance, is explicitly legal. If it were legal anywhere else, they would not have limited the exception to BR/F2.

It is not limited to just that. There are two other conditions that meet the criteria, and they were posted previously from the Wendelstedt Manual.

The one you are hanging your hat on does not apply to batted balls, but balls that are in possession of fielders. Your argument is that the ball has ceased to be batted, because the ball was in possession of the fielder. However, the hindrance started when the ball was still on the ground, and still in batted-ball status. Exceptions do not apply.

The second "exception" isn't an exception. It delineates the point at which protection ends and obstruction begins.

That is not my argument. Where you got that from I do not know. My argument has always been:

 

When there is unintentional contact or a collision with a fielder in possession of a ball and attempting to tag or throwing to another fielder;

 

which is directly from the WUM and what happened.

 

There was no intentional contact

The pitcher was in possession of the ball and throwing to another fielder, aka, the 1st baseman, when the collison occurred.

 

That's nothing. Play on.

A possessed ball cannot be a batted ball. You are arguing it is in possession. It's very simple.

(Which is wrong, BTW, because contact was initiated when the ball was just inside the foul line, on the ground, not in possession.)

[Texas Manny]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The pitcher picked the ball up and began his throw when the runner, who was properly in the running lane, made contact (0:09).

The running lane is irrelevant. Even if he was out of it, the ruling is the same, depending on if the fielder has protection.

The pitcher, ball, and runner met at the same location at the same time. The pitcher picked the ball up and began his throw when the runner, who was properly in the running lane, made contact (0:09). Under the rules, because each component presented themselves at the same time and no one was physically established or occupied the spot of contact, there is incidental contact and therefore no interference or obstruction.

 

Absolutely false. If a fielder has protection and is hindered, it is interference. The rules don't say anything about physical establishment or occupying a spot. This isn't basketball.

 

You are incorrect. Under your argument, the 75 World Series catcher collision with the batter would have been interference. It was nothing. Same premise.

 

That would be the one exception to which I referred. That, and only that, type of hindrance, is explicitly legal. If it were legal anywhere else, they would not have limited the exception to BR/F2.

 

It is not limited to just that. There are two other conditions that meet the criteria, and they were posted previously from the Wendelstedt Manual.

 

The one you are hanging your hat on does not apply to batted balls, but balls that are in possession of fielders. Your argument is that the ball has ceased to be batted, because the ball was in possession of the fielder. However, the hindrance started when the ball was still on the ground, and still in batted-ball status. Exceptions do not apply.

The second "exception" isn't an exception. It delineates the point at which protection ends and obstruction begins.

 

That is not my argument. Where you got that from I do not know. My argument has always been:

 

When there is unintentional contact or a collision with a fielder in possession of a ball and attempting to tag or throwing to another fielder;

 

which is directly from the WUM and what happened.

 

There was no intentional contact

The pitcher was in possession of the ball and throwing to another fielder, aka, the 1st baseman, when the collison occurred.

 

That's nothing. Play on.

 

A possessed ball cannot be a batted ball. You are arguing it is in possession. It's very simple.

(Which is wrong, BTW, because contact was initiated when the ball was just inside the foul line, on the ground, not in possession.)

 

Watch the video again. I'll post up stills. The ball was in possession and a throw was being made at the same time of contact.

[Replacematt]

The pitcher picked the ball up and began his throw when the runner, who was properly in the running lane, made contact (0:09).

The running lane is irrelevant. Even if he was out of it, the ruling is the same, depending on if the fielder has protection.

The pitcher, ball, and runner met at the same location at the same time. The pitcher picked the ball up and began his throw when the runner, who was properly in the running lane, made contact (0:09). Under the rules, because each component presented themselves at the same time and no one was physically established or occupied the spot of contact, there is incidental contact and therefore no interference or obstruction.

 

Absolutely false. If a fielder has protection and is hindered, it is interference. The rules don't say anything about physical establishment or occupying a spot. This isn't basketball.

You are incorrect. Under your argument, the 75 World Series catcher collision with the batter would have been interference. It was nothing. Same premise.

That would be the one exception to which I referred. That, and only that, type of hindrance, is explicitly legal. If it were legal anywhere else, they would not have limited the exception to BR/F2.

It is not limited to just that. There are two other conditions that meet the criteria, and they were posted previously from the Wendelstedt Manual.

The one you are hanging your hat on does not apply to batted balls, but balls that are in possession of fielders. Your argument is that the ball has ceased to be batted, because the ball was in possession of the fielder. However, the hindrance started when the ball was still on the ground, and still in batted-ball status. Exceptions do not apply.

The second "exception" isn't an exception. It delineates the point at which protection ends and obstruction begins.

That is not my argument. Where you got that from I do not know. My argument has always been:

 

When there is unintentional contact or a collision with a fielder in possession of a ball and attempting to tag or throwing to another fielder;

 

which is directly from the WUM and what happened.

 

There was no intentional contact

The pitcher was in possession of the ball and throwing to another fielder, aka, the 1st baseman, when the collison occurred.

 

That's nothing. Play on.

A possessed ball cannot be a batted ball. You are arguing it is in possession. It's very simple.

(Which is wrong, BTW, because contact was initiated when the ball was just inside the foul line, on the ground, not in possession.)

Watch the video again. I'll post up stills. The ball was in possession and a throw was being made at the same time of contact.

I did. Frame-by-frame. The initial hindrance was a full second earlier than you attest.

[Richvee]

FWIW- I have F1 sliding in front of BR in an effort to chase down a ball which he deflected. I don't see this as being in the process of fielding the ball again thereby establishing himself as a protected fielder again. He's simply in the process of chasing after the ball which he deflected....and in the process got in BR way.  That's OBS. 

[Texas Manny]

Incorrect.

 

 

 

0:06 Pitcher has stepped rearward with his right foot, to block the ball from going into centerfield. The ball ricochets off and heads towards the foul line:

 

0:08 Pitcher is approaching the "step and within reach of the ball" zone. Runner is continuing up the line, properly in the running lane. The ball is just ahead of the runner at this point:

 

0:09 Pitcher goes down to field the ball and is now in his protected status. The runner has not yet made contact with the fielder. The ball is located just below the pitcher's left glove hand:

 

0:09(A): Pitcher rolls down onto side. The runner has jumped over the pitcher. The ball is now in the pitcher's right throwing arm, and he begins his attempt to throw to the 1st baseman:

 

0:09(B): Contact has now occurred and the runner's momentum has now caused him to lean forward in fall. The pitcher still is trying to get the ball to the 1st baseman:

 

0:11: The runner has now fallen to the ground, pitcher recovers and throws the ball to the 1st baseman:

 

Had contact occurred earlier as you claim, then the runner would have fallen into the pitcher, not over him, causing both players to crash, and the pitcher more than likely would not have been able to field the ball. It is clear that the runner attempted to go over him and is evident by him being higher than the body of the pitcher. That can only happen if he leaps, not collides, which at 0:09 he does.

 

The pictures clearly show the pitcher, the ball, and the runner arrived at the same time and contact occurred at the same time the pitcher was attempting to throw the ball to the 1st baseman. Hence: When there is unintentional contact or a collision with a fielder in possession of a ball and attempting to tag or throwing to another fielder; which is directly from the WUM and perfectly describes what happened.

 

There was no intentional contact. The pitcher was in possession of the ball and attempting to throw to another fielder, aka, the 1st baseman, when the collison occurred.

 

That's nothing. Play on.

[Mr Umpire]

I'm still curious why contact has anything to do with it.  OBS/INT does not require and never has required contact. 

 

The OBS occurs long before F1 stops chasing the ball.  Even if you want to "re-establish" protection, he cannot be chasing the ball still.  Here, his slide is still chasing the ball.  The ball has to be still or pretty close to it.  Since it is not at the point of OBS (not contact), he cannot re-establish protection.  I don't care what interp you use.  Even the WUM says he has to be making an immediate play, him sliding after the ball is not an immediate play.  Remember the definition of play, a legitimate attempt to retire a runner.  He can't do that if the ball is still rolling away from him.  Even by WUM interp, this cannot be protection re-established.

 

And, FWIW, this isn't the first time Wendlestedt has decided to teach something not in accordance to PBUC.  They do put in their interps how they think the rule should be governed.  It has happened before so do not take it as the final word. 

 

This is OBS regardless of ruleset or interp.  Even by your 3rd still shot, F1 is still sliding after the ball when he obstructed BR.