What Would You Do? Part III

[Jocko]

@MidAmUmp - I watched it one time. No pauses. No rewinds. Once. My initial call on the field would be that's nothing.

[Mr Umpire]

@MidAmUmp - I watched it one time. No pauses. No rewinds. Once. My initial call on the field would be that's nothing.

And, that is what the umpires had on the field as well.  From my understanding, if not for this video (who knows what paperwork said), this protest may not have been upheld.  But, it was.

[basejester]

That's weird. A protest isn't an instant replay challenge. Surely they agreed on the facts and disputed the rules interpretation.

[JaxRolo]

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:

Not only do we have hindrance here, it started to occur earlier than this. I'm trying to crop my still into something usable. There is no hinderance there. You cannot have hinderance unless you have contact. Contact did not occur until the runner was in the air and his feet hit the pitcher. The runner is still full stride, and his direction and speed have not changed. Ok. Who told you this lie? You do not have to have hindrance without contact. Contact only makes it easier to call but is not a requirement nor any criteria to look for. The definition of hindrance requires a change to occur in either motion or direction by an outside force. The runner never stopped running. He kept running full stride up the line. No change in speed or direction. Up until the point that the runner had to jump was there no hindrance, and by that time, the pitcher was already on the ground, fielding the ball. Again, look at the wording you use. I don't understand what you are saying. This is what I'm saying by you reading to much into things and making it harder. This is another situation where you are pretty much the only one trying to make this point and 154 other member umpires stating otherwise.

[MidAmUmp]

@Jocko - I'll send you a cookie!!!

[umpstu]

So, you're saying he's not chasing after a deflected ball?

[mstaylor]

This thread has gone all over the place, let's see if we can recap. 

1. Ball is hit at F1, hits his foot and deflects toward the first base line. 

2. BR is advancing to first.

3. F1 chases the ball to the line.

4. BR jumps/trips over F1 who is chasing the ball. 

5. F1 throws runner out after he falls.

Now rulings.

1. It's nothing, play on.

2. It's obstruction, kill the ball and award first.

3. It's interference, kill the ball and call the runner out. 

4. Pitcher can chase the ball and because he is close to the ball he gets protection. 

5.       "        "       "       "      "    but because he deflected it, he doesn't get protection, and can be guilty of obstruction.

 

My take on it is the pitcher can not be protected so no interference. Because he can't be a protected fielder then he can be called for obstruction. What it can't be is what was called on the field, nothing. So I would have obstruction, kill the ball in OBR and award first. In Fed and NCAA, it is a delayed dead ball then award first. No matter what is called, expect to have an in depth discussion with  one manager or the other. So, might as well make the correct call and take the heat knowing you are right. 

Manny posted an interp from HW that said the F1 could be protected, then someone else found a MLBUM cite that says no. Manny correctly agreed MLBUM trumps HW, who although authoritative is not official. Also, I believe it was noted that NCAA says obstruction. I don't believe NFHS addresses it so I would go with the OBR and NCAA cites. 

Anybody that disagrees with any part of this hopefully the layout will make it easier to point out their descent. Now have at it. 

[BT_Blue]

I remember the NCAA as well as FED changing this play to INT a few years ago. The fielder my be REprotected if he is "in the process of fielding the ball" even if he muffs it at first. I do not have a rule book handy to cite a rule.

[MidAmUmp]

I agree this topic has gone all over the place...which in some ways is good.  Not once have we discussed what mask the plate umpire is wearing, or what shoes the base guy has on.  We're talking real umpire situations.

[MidAmUmp]

@BT_Blue - Here is the NCAA A.R. you are referencing...

A.R. 5—

 

 

If a fielder chases after a deflected batted ball ahead of a runner’s arrival and is

in the act of picking up the ball (fielding) when contact is made by an offensive player,

interference is the call. If the fielder is chasing after the deflected batted ball and contact is

made between the two players, obstruction should be the call.

[MidAmUmp]

Based on that Approved Ruling, and the shots of the video Ol' Tex has posted, I would be of the opinion that the batter should be called out for interference.

 

To be perfectly honest, the first time I saw the clip (which was a year or two ago) my immediate thought was to call the B/R out for interference. Over time I've changed my mind to obstruction.

 

I don't know if anyone is truely good enough to determine at full speed that the pitcher was in the act of fielding the deflection prior to contact.

[BT_Blue]

@BT_Blue - Here is the NCAA A.R. you are referencing...

A.R. 5—

 

 

If a fielder chases after a deflected batted ball ahead of a runner’s arrival and is

in the act of picking up the ball (fielding) when contact is made by an offensive player,

interference is the call. If the fielder is chasing after the deflected batted ball and contact is

made between the two players, obstruction should be the call.

  

Based on that Approved Ruling, and the shots of the video Ol' Tex has posted, I would be of the opinion that the batter should be called out for interference.

 

To be perfectly honest, the first time I saw the clip (which was a year or two ago) my immediate thought was to call the B/R out for interference. Over time I've changed my mind to obstruction.

 

I don't know if anyone is truely good enough to determine at full speed that the pitcher was in the act of fielding the deflection prior to contact.

thats the one. Thanks.

according to what you have written, I would be inclinded to rule towards INT.

[umpstu]

Based on that Approved Ruling, and the shots of the video Ol' Tex has posted, I would be of the opinion that the batter should be called out for interference.

 

To be perfectly honest, the first time I saw the clip (which was a year or two ago) my immediate thought was to call the B/R out for interference. Over time I've changed my mind to obstruction.

 

I don't know if anyone is truely good enough to determine at full speed that the pitcher was in the act of fielding the deflection prior to contact.

At full speed and during that actual play on the field, if I were the umpire I call obstruction. The luxury of frame by frame is not an option. But, I do thank Manny.

[BT_Blue]

I remember this video when it was released some two-three years ago was the reason for the NCAA rule change. It was funny as the number of OBS v. INT was split some 60/40. This time round seems to be WAY MORE towards OBS.

[Mr Umpire]

That's weird. A protest isn't an instant replay challenge. Surely they agreed on the facts and disputed the rules interpretation.

I don't know.  I wasn't there. The protest was probably held after the game was over and may not have been the same day when reviewed.  Who knows.

[Thunderheads]

So, ...it appears the major sticking point is:   Can an infielder re-establish himself for protection?  WUM seems to imply 'yes' ,....which is what Manny is running with .....  MLBUM is saying 'no' ....

 

@MidAmUmp

1) the NCAA interp you posted doesn't really break it down far enough, unless I missed something

2) what does umpire equipment have to do w/ the interpretation of this ruling?

 

Based on OBR, you'd have to lean toward MLBUM and have OBS ....

[Haid D' Salaami]

 

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."

 

Manny the step and reach only applies to the ball in the immediate area of the fielder... the ball must stay within a step and reach for him to be protected, any time a fielder has to chase a ball he is not gonna be protected.

[Haid D' Salaami]

 

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.

 

manny go back you watch it agin, the pitcher ran from the mound, all the way to the foul line, this is not a step and reach.. re read the rules, can then copy and paste it.

[Thunderheads]

 

 

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.

 

manny go back you watch it agin, the pitcher ran from the mound, all the way to the foul line, this is not a step and reach.. re read the rules, can then copy and paste it.

 

Haid,

I think what Manny is hanging his hat on is the WUM interp which reads that a fielder can RE-establish himself as 'making a play' ............

[Haid D' Salaami]

I remember this video when it was released some two-three years ago was the reason for the NCAA rule change. It was funny as the number of OBS v. INT was split some 60/40. This time round seems to be WAY MORE towards OBS.

This video had nothing to do with the rule change.. the rule is now just like OBR... this is OBS on a BR before reaching 1st base. NCAA only changed type B OBS to a dead ball instead of keeping it live.

[Haid D' Salaami]

 

 

 

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.

 

manny go back you watch it agin, the pitcher ran from the mound, all the way to the foul line, this is not a step and reach.. re read the rules, can then copy and paste it.

 

Haid,

I think what Manny is hanging his hat on is the WUM interp which reads that a fielder can RE-establish himself as 'making a play' ............

 

Yes he can re-establish himself, but not when he is sliding at the ball and the fielder and runner arrived at the same time, so the fielder ( only in this video ) is not protected, NCAA still had ruled OBS on this play.

[Thunderheads]

 

 

 

 

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.

 

manny go back you watch it agin, the pitcher ran from the mound, all the way to the foul line, this is not a step and reach.. re read the rules, can then copy and paste it.

 

Haid,

I think what Manny is hanging his hat on is the WUM interp which reads that a fielder can RE-establish himself as 'making a play' ............

 

Yes he can re-establish himself, but not when he is sliding at the ball and the fielder and runner arrived at the same time, so the fielder ( only in this video ) is not protected, NCAA still had ruled OBS on this play.

 

So sliding at the ball is not considered a step-and-reach then, ....even though I can see how you could see that it would be ......

[mstaylor]

 

 

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.

 

manny go back you watch it agin, the pitcher ran from the mound, all the way to the foul line, this is not a step and reach.. re read the rules, can then copy and paste it.

 

Manny conceded that the MLBUM trumps his WUM cite. WUM is authoritative, MLBUM is official. It is no different than when we used JEA and J-R as references but if PBUC or MLBUM  said different we went with that. 

[24sdad]

I agree this topic has gone all over the place...which in some ways is good.  Not once have we discussed what mask the plate umpire is wearing, or what shoes the base guy has on.  We're talking real umpire situations.

 

 

 

2) what does umpire equipment have to do w/ the interpretation of this ruling?

 

 

Going to go out on a limb here and guess MAU is referring to, "Yea I have OBS, but more importantly did you see BU's new super duper Chuck Taylor Converse base shoes?  Where can I get a pair?"

 

But I could be mistaken.

[mstaylor]

 

I agree this topic has gone all over the place...which in some ways is good.  Not once have we discussed what mask the plate umpire is wearing, or what shoes the base guy has on.  We're talking real umpire situations.

 

 

 

2) what does umpire equipment have to do w/ the interpretation of this ruling?

 

 

Going to go out on a limb here and guess MAU is referring to, "Yea I have OBS, but more importantly did you see BU's new super duper Chuck Taylor Converse base shoes?  Where can I get a pair?"

 

But I could be mistaken.

 

I believe it would a