What Would You Do? Part III

[MidAmUmp]

I'm sure this video has been posted on here before, but what would you do?
 
Again, don't Monday Morning QB it.  Watch it once and decide what you'd do.
 
If someone knows how to embed this video, do so.
 

[24sdad]

I have OBS on F1.  He had to move a considerable distance to the misplayed ball and was not in the immediate act of making a play on B/R (such as F4 dropping a ground ball at his feet and as he reaches to pick it up, R1 runs into him).  In FED I have a DDB and once F1 throws out B/R at first, call time and award B/R first as well as awarding other runners the bases they would have reached absent of the OBS.  In OBR I believe it is an immediate dead ball as B/R was OBS prior to reaching first base.

[spiritump]

I have a fielder making a play on a ball, and I have a batter/runner  trying to get to first, this time they meet.  play on. 

[Texas Manny]

"That's nothing! That's nothing!"  When the runner and the fielder, in the act of fielding the ball, at the same time, there is no obstruction and no interference.

[Jocko]

I do not have a clear view of the ball the entire time, but it appears to me that f1 was fielding the ball at the time of contact. Definitive train wreck. that's nothing! Play on

[UmpireFever]

So if the fielder is fielding the ball at the time of the contact, why would it be nothing?

[baseballfan]

Once the ball gets away from the pitcher that far, he's lost his right to be fielding the ball and have the right of way. That's definite OBS on F1. I echo everything 24sdad said. 

[JaxRolo]

OBS

[mrumpiresir]

This is where F1 is protected within "a step and a reach".  This didn't happen. F1 is guilty of OBS all day, any league.

[ricka56]

It's not nothing...it is something...F1 had his chance to field the ball and booted it further than a step and a reach away...I've got obstruction.

[Texas Manny]

 

From the Wendelstedt Umpire School Rules & Interpretations Manual, pg 146, SS 8.3.1.J (V) Obstruction, Footnote 338 and 339:

 

Footnote 338:

 

"In the act of fielding" is determined by whether, in the umpire's judgment, he is still making a legitimate and immediate play on the ball.

 

If a ball is deflected off of a fielder, he may still be in the act of fielding it if he is still making a legitimate and immediate play on the ball.

 

If a ball is deflected off of a fielder, he may still be in the act of fielding it if he remains in the immediate vicinity of, and is making a play on, the ball. 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. A batted ball being deflected does not prohibit other fielders from attempting to field the ball, and if they are in the act of fielding it, they are still protected from interference by a runner.

 

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.

 

Footnote 339:

 

When contact occurs between a runner and a fielder, there is generally some sort of violation, either interference or obstruction. However, there are a few instances when contact between a runner and a fielder is neither interference nor obstruction. They are:

 

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

 

• When there is unintentional contact or a collision with a fielder positioned in the runner's basepath while receiving a throw, or; If contact is made a moment after the ball has passed the fielder, this is obstruction because he is no longer in the act of fielding.

 

• When there is unintentional contact near the plate....

 

End of Wendelstedt

 

 

I would have to say that it's nothing because the collision occurred at the same time the fielder was attempting to field and throw to first base. At 0:09 you can see that the collision occurs and the fielder is in possession and has begun his throw to first. The pitcher re-established his protection and was in the act of fielding the ball. The contact was incidental, not intentional. The batter-runner is in his running lane. "That's nothing!" Play on.

 

[afaber12]

"That's nothing... He's out!" (I'm basing this on OBR, since I don't have any real familiarity with your other rule sets.)

 

I don't see how the protection a fielder has when fielding a ball simply evaporates never to return after his first attempt to field the ball. Yes there are examples in the book that talk about a fielder makes an attempt but the ball gets past him, and then he stays where he is, and in not moving he is in a runner's way. That is described as being "very likely" obstruction if memory serves. But that's not what's happening here: F1 literally booted the first attempt, kicking the ball toward the 1BL, and then races over to get to it. When he did pick up the ball, its in the running lane. I'd have to watch it again to see for sure, but either the ball had stopped in the running lane, or was still moving away from the mound further into foul territory when it was picked up. Either way, when F1 is in a position to potentially obstruct BR, he's within a step and a reach of the ball, so is in the act of fielding the ball.

 

The flip side is if obstruction can't be called here, but clearly a crossing of paths if not contact was made, should interference be called? I think the nature of the play makes it difficult for BR to be expected to do anything other than some minor variation of what he actually did. He did nothing to initiate contact, and I don't think you can point to anything that suggests intent on his part. He can't be expected to accurately judge if or when either the ball or F1 are going to cross his path in front, at, or behind him.

 

"That's nothing... He's out!"

[24sdad]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Footnote 339:

 

When contact occurs between a runner and a fielder, there is generally some sort of violation, either interference or obstruction. However, there are a few instances when contact between a runner and a fielder is neither interference nor obstruction. They are:

 

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

 

 

AT BEST, the collision occurred as F1 slid in front of B/R and grabbed the ball.  There was no attempt to tag or throw out B/R until well after the collision.  But I am not convinced F1 even had control of the ball when the collision occurred.  We will just have to disagree on that point.

 

I watched it one time before my initial post.  At that time, I do not believe F1 clearly reestablished his fielding position prior to the collision and was not attempting a tag or throw prior to the collision.  Now, if it was a little clearer and I was able to slow it down, maybe (maybe not) I would agree with you.  But on first view my initial, immediate reaction is OBS and would be easily defended.

[Texas Manny]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Footnote 339:

 

When contact occurs between a runner and a fielder, there is generally some sort of violation, either interference or obstruction. However, there are a few instances when contact between a runner and a fielder is neither interference nor obstruction. They are:

 

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

 

 

AT BEST, the collision occurred as F1 slid in front of B/R and grabbed the ball.  There was no attempt to tag or throw out B/R until well after the collision.  But I am not convinced F1 even had control of the ball when the collision occurred.  We will just have to disagree on that point.

 

I watched it one time before my initial post.  At that time, I do not believe F1 clearly reestablished his fielding position prior to the collision and was not attempting a tag or throw prior to the collision.  Now, if it was a little clearer and I was able to slow it down, maybe (maybe not) I would agree with you.  But on first view my initial, immediate reaction is OBS and would be easily defended.

 

Have to disagree. You didn't see what I wrote below:

 

At 0:09 you can see that the collision occurs and the fielder is in possession and has begun his throw to first. The pitcher re-established his protection and was in the act of fielding the ball. The contact was incidental, not intentional. The batter-runner is in his running lane. "That's nothing!" Play on.

[24sdad]

I read it, I just disagree with your sequence of events. And it's no biggie if we disagree. We see different things...it happens.

[Texas Manny]

I read it, I just disagree with your sequence of events. And it's no biggie if we disagree. We see different things...it happens.

It's not my sequence of events. It's the videos. Play, pause. Play, pause. It is what it is. Yep, I concur. No biggie if we disagree. It happens.

[acpar72]

You have OBS don't you Jason?

[JaxRolo]

I read it, I just disagree with your sequence of events. And it's no biggie if we disagree. We see different things...it happens.

It's not my sequence of events. It's the videos. Play, pause. Play, pause. It is what it is. Yep, I concur. No biggie if we disagree. It happens. A lot of people disagree Manny!!! Ps. Not meant to be disrespectful . Just having a steak and drinking a beer after my clinic today!

[Texas Manny]

 

I read it, I just disagree with your sequence of events. And it's no biggie if we disagree. We see different things...it happens.

It's not my sequence of events. It's the videos. Play, pause. Play, pause. It is what it is. Yep, I concur. No biggie if we disagree. It happens. A lot of people disagree Manny!!! Ps. Not meant to be disrespectful . Just having a steak and drinking a beer after my clinic today!

 

[Kevin_K]

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.

[Mr Umpire]

OBS.  The fielder is not in the act of fielding the ball.  Also, he does not have the ball the moment the runner made an attempt to avoid the pitcher.  The moment the runner altered his running which is clearly before F1 got the ball, it is OBS.  The collision has nothing to do with when OBS occurs.

 

This was reviewed by NCAA and declared to be OBS. From what I understand, this video was used in the protest and upheld. This is OBS in ALL codes.

 

Also, once the original fielder is getting the ball, he is never getting "in the act of fielding" again.  He has to have possession of the ball before the runner alters his running.  If another fielder, F3 in this case, would have come to field the deflection, then the runner would have to avoid the fielder.  But, only if it is another fielder AND the runner has to have the opportunity to avoid contact when a deflection occurs.  The runner cannot be expected to know where the ball will go on deflection.

[basejester]

If this were a really crappy throw instead of a deflection, would it change your answer? Or is it the same standard in both cases?

[Mr Umpire]

If this were a really crappy throw instead of a deflection, would it change your answer? Or is it the same standard in both cases?

No.  Once the fielder is chasing the throw, he has to avoid the runner.  If it is in his immediate vicinity, then he is considered "in the act of fielding".

[afaber12]

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.

[Texas Manny]

I don't agree that this is obstruction in OBR for the reasons previously stated. I'm not convinced either that it is OBS in NCAA rules either, but am not saying it isn't under that code. I will need to look it up and research it some.