pitcher and batter collide on 1st base line

[UmpJM]

maven,

 

I have seen very credible interpretations that suggest the act of fielding (and the fielder's resulting "protection") continues beyond his gaining possession of the batted ball.

 

Edited to add...

 

From the MLBUM:

 

Note that under the Official Baseball Rules, a fielder is protected while in the act of fielding a

batted ball. In addition, a fielder is also protected while in the act of making a play after having

fielded a batted ball. If, after a player has fielded a batted ball but before he is able to throw the

ball, a runner hinders or impedes such fielder, the runner shall be called out for interference.

 

 

 

JM

[ricka56]

 

The step and a reach protection should be given when the fielder is still trying to field the ball. But that isn't the case here. The fielder is trying to make a tag. And when you jump in the middle of a runner's path to make a tag, contact will result. BR did not knock the ball loose on the contact. I wouldn't call interference. BR doesn't need obstruction protection either, so I don't have a problem with nothing being the call.

It doesn't matter what the fielder is 'trying' to do.  If the batted ball is within a step and a reach of the fielder, he is, by definition, in the act of fielding it.

I don't have access to that definition. I think that the actual "in the act of fielding" is assumed in the step and a reach protection, but if the fielder doesn't even know that the ball is at his feet, what is the runner interferring him from doing?

 

The step and a reach protection shouldn't be afforded anyone that doesn't know where the ball is.

[Replacematt]

 

 

The step and a reach protection should be given when the fielder is still trying to field the ball. But that isn't the case here. The fielder is trying to make a tag. And when you jump in the middle of a runner's path to make a tag, contact will result. BR did not knock the ball loose on the contact. I wouldn't call interference. BR doesn't need obstruction protection either, so I don't have a problem with nothing being the call.

It doesn't matter what the fielder is 'trying' to do.  If the batted ball is within a step and a reach of the fielder, he is, by definition, in the act of fielding it.

I don't have access to that definition. I think that the actual "in the act of fielding" is assumed in the step and a reach protection, but if the fielder doesn't even know that the ball is at his feet, what is the runner interferring him from doing?

 

The step and a reach protection shouldn't be afforded anyone that doesn't know where the ball is.

 

 

So, we have to read the mind of the fielder to determine if he knows where the ball is?

[johnnyg08]

The step and a reach protection shouldn't be afforded anyone that doesn't know where the ball is. An interference call is too rule-geeky foe me.

Ricka56, for all I know your plaque is in Cooperstown. In the event that it isn't, and as a person who played middle infield for 20 years, I fumbled a lot baseballs. I'm glad I had step-reach protection to gather myself, find the baseball and attempt to get an out with having to worry about getting ran over and if I was ran over, I had rule protection via interference. It's not rule-geeky and in this play w/ all due respect to the SEC crew, it's not "nothing"

[ricka56]

 

 

 

The step and a reach protection should be given when the fielder is still trying to field the ball. But that isn't the case here. The fielder is trying to make a tag. And when you jump in the middle of a runner's path to make a tag, contact will result. BR did not knock the ball loose on the contact. I wouldn't call interference. BR doesn't need obstruction protection either, so I don't have a problem with nothing being the call.

It doesn't matter what the fielder is 'trying' to do.  If the batted ball is within a step and a reach of the fielder, he is, by definition, in the act of fielding it.

I don't have access to that definition. I think that the actual "in the act of fielding" is assumed in the step and a reach protection, but if the fielder doesn't even know that the ball is at his feet, what is the runner interferring him from doing?

 

The step and a reach protection shouldn't be afforded anyone that doesn't know where the ball is.

 

 

So, we have to read the mind of the fielder to determine if he knows where the ball is?

Having the ball in one's possession is required to make a tag. If a fielder isn't working on gaining possession (when it is within a step/reach of him) then, it wouldn't take much mind reading to know that he doesn't know where it is.

[maven]

maven,

 

I have seen very credible interpretations that suggest the act of fielding (and the fielder's resulting "protection") continues beyond his gaining possession of the batted ball.

 

Edited to add...

 

From the MLBUM:

 

Note that under the Official Baseball Rules, a fielder is protected while in the act of fielding a

batted ball. In addition, a fielder is also protected while in the act of making a play after having

fielded a batted ball. If, after a player has fielded a batted ball but before he is able to throw the

ball, a runner hinders or impedes such fielder, the runner shall be called out for interference.

 

 

 

JM

 

OK, amend my #1 to read: "Fielder completes his play on the ball."

 

Thanks, JM, that's helpful. Except to Jeff.

[johnnyg08]

Having the ball in one's possession is required to make a tag. If a fielder isn't working on gaining possession (when it is within a step/reach of him) then, it wouldn't take much mind reading to know that he doesn't know where it is.

Okay, I'll bite. How much baseball have you actually played?

[Thunderheads]

 

that's exactly what I said .... I thought "in reality he's not" answered it, but .... no, he's not in the act of fielding.

 

Why not, Jeff? He certainly started to field the ball. I can think of 3 ways for the act of fielding to end.

• Fielder gains possession of ball
• Fielder boots ball and it gets away from him more than "a step and a reach"
• Runner interferes

Are you thinking that this play fits one of these other than #3, or do you have another way for the act of fielding to end?

 

Technically, by explicit rule, ....yes, I understand this situation.

 

But, ... if you THINK you have the ball, but you don't, even though the ball is at your feet (within a step and a reach), you don't know where it is ....so....is that in the 'act of fielding' ... I know the answer I'm explaining my previous 'no' ...

[johnnyg08]

If you've played infield, you've booted a ball and you never know exactly where it is. You know it's not in your glove, but by rule you're afforded a step and a reach to locate the ball and try to get an out.

[maven]

Technically, by explicit rule, ....yes, I understand this situation.

 

But, ... if you THINK you have the ball, but you don't, even though the ball is at your feet (within a step and a reach), you don't know where it is ....so....is that in the 'act of fielding' ... I know the answer I'm explaining my previous 'no' ...

Jeff, I'm not sure why you're fighting this one, but consider this: part of the reason for protecting the fielder is to afford him the opportunity to pay attention to such issues as whether the ball is in his glove, and to act accordingly.

 

With that freight train bearing down on him, the fielder in this play could only brace for impact. You're going to hold him responsible for that?

[Jglopez7]

Remember...always about safety...not whether you have the ball or not IMHO

[ricka56]

In the event that it isn't, and as a person who played middle infield for 20 years, I fumbled a lot baseballs. I'm glad I had step-reach protection to gather myself, find the baseball and attempt to get an out with having to worry about getting ran over and if I was ran over, I had rule protection via interference.

 

If you are trying to find the ball, you may have my protection. If you ain't looking for it, then I ain't protecting.

 

Ricka56, for all I know your plaque is in Cooperstown.

 

I guess you don't remember my induction ceremony...

R&M presenting my Cooperstown bust

[BalkHawk]

Let's pretend this play has just a bit more time to develop. Now f1 boots the ball, but instead of stepping and/or reaching for said ball he cowers as if to brace for impact. Is he still protected or has he obstructed the runner's progress?

[Replacematt]

Let's pretend this play has just a bit more time to develop. Now f1 boots the ball, but instead of stepping and/or reaching for said ball he cowers as to brace for impact. Is he still protected or has he obstructed the runner's progress?

 

I'm still protecting him.

 

Just like a runner slowing up on an unprotected fielder is still OBS, I'm not penalizing a fielder for wanting to eat solid food at least a little bit longer. 

[ricka56]

Let's pretend this play has just a bit more time to develop. Now f1 boots the ball, but instead of stepping and/or reaching for said ball he cowers as if to brace for impact. Is he still protected or has he obstructed the runner's progress?

 

This doesn't answer your question, but as far a bracing for impact, I think both players did this. I don't think there was time to get a malicious thought in either of their heads. When an unexpected collision is about to occur, survival instincts take over and we hunker down and try to bounce off safely. Often a runner hunkering down (survival mode) looks like he is dropping a malicious shoulder. I wouldn't of have had MC on BR in this collision. The only malicious thought was in F3's head post 1B touch.

[johnnyg08]

Let's pretend this play has just a bit more time to develop. Now f1 boots the ball, but instead of stepping and/or reaching for said ball he cowers as if to brace for impact. Is he still protected or has he obstructed the runner's progress?

 

I'm still protecting.  Runner has the burden to avoid impeding. 

[gclg2000]

 

Let's pretend this play has just a bit more time to develop. Now f1 boots the ball, but instead of stepping and/or reaching for said ball he cowers as if to brace for impact. Is he still protected or has he obstructed the runner's progress?

 

This doesn't answer your question, but as far a bracing for impact, I think both players did this. I don't think there was time to get a malicious thought in either of their heads. 

 

 

It was pretty clear the FSU BR altered his running path to create the contact (at minimum he did not try to avoid).  I'd call that on purpose.  And running as fast as he was and altering his path so that contact would be made is easily malicious in my opinion.

 

A 180lb kid (rough guess cause he looks short) running that fast and intentionally changing his course to smoke the fielder?  That's not malicious?

 

If he was coming home to a play at the plate that would be an easy targeting EJ.

[Richvee]

 And when you jump in the middle of a runner's path to make a tag, contact will result. 

F1 was there long before BR got there. No way "Jump in the middle of runner's path"  is accurate here. 

 

 

 

 

 I don't think there was time to get a malicious thought in either of their heads. When an unexpected collision is about to occur, ....

 

Are we watching the same play?It sure wasn't unexpected contact for BR.  BR clearly veered from a direct patch to 1st base, took an inside route to purposely and maliciously level F1. he easily could have ran straight to 1B completely avoiding contact. As a matter of fact, he was on that line before he set his sights on F1. 

[JaxRolo]

Let's pretend this play has just a bit more time to develop. Now f1 boots the ball, but instead of stepping and/or reaching for said ball he cowers as if to brace for impact. Is he still protected or has he obstructed the runner's progress?

This doesn't answer your question, but as far a bracing for impact, I think both players did this. I don't think there was time to get a malicious thought in either of their heads.

It was pretty clear the FSU BR altered his running path to create the contact (at minimum he did not try to avoid). I'd call that on purpose. And running as fast as he was and altering his path so that contact would be made is easily malicious in my opinion.

A 180lb kid (rough guess cause he looks short) running that fast and intentionally changing his course to smoke the fielder? That's not malicious?

If he was coming home to a play at the plate that would be an easy targeting EJ.

I agree. Good post.

[Larry in TN]

This doesn't answer your question, but as far a bracing for impact, I think both players did this. I don't think there was time to get a malicious thought in either of their heads

 

Then why did the B/R change his path?  He was running in foul territory then altered his path into fair territory which ensured the collision.  If he had stepped the same distance to the right the collision would have been avoided and he likely would have been tagged out.

[bam]

To me it looked like the BR saw F1 running across his path and thought that he may have to go left to avoid the collision.  No way was this MC.  Arms never extended and if he were truly trying to truck the pitcher, BR would have gone down as well. 

[grayhawk]

 

 

Let's pretend this play has just a bit more time to develop. Now f1 boots the ball, but instead of stepping and/or reaching for said ball he cowers as if to brace for impact. Is he still protected or has he obstructed the runner's progress?

 

This doesn't answer your question, but as far a bracing for impact, I think both players did this. I don't think there was time to get a malicious thought in either of their heads. 

 

 

It was pretty clear the FSU BR altered his running path to create the contact (at minimum he did not try to avoid).  I'd call that on purpose.  And running as fast as he was and altering his path so that contact would be made is easily malicious in my opinion.

 

A 180lb kid (rough guess cause he looks short) running that fast and intentionally changing his course to smoke the fielder?  That's not malicious?

 

If he was coming home to a play at the plate that would be an easy targeting EJ.

 

 

Umm, try 230 (according to the FSU website). Kid looks like a linebacker.

[Replacematt]

To me it looked like the BR saw F1 running across his path and thought that he may have to go left to avoid the collision.  No way was this MC.  Arms never extended and if he were truly trying to truck the pitcher, BR would have gone down as well. 

 

A. You don't extend your arms on a hit.

B. If you're trying to truck someone and you fall, you're probably doing it wrong.

[Thunderheads]

 

Technically, by explicit rule, ....yes, I understand this situation.

 

But, ... if you THINK you have the ball, but you don't, even though the ball is at your feet (within a step and a reach), you don't know where it is ....so....is that in the 'act of fielding' ... I know the answer I'm explaining my previous 'no' ...

Jeff, I'm not sure why you're fighting this one, but consider this: part of the reason for protecting the fielder is to afford him the opportunity to pay attention to such issues as whether the ball is in his glove, and to act accordingly.

 

With that freight train bearing down on him, the fielder in this play could only brace for impact. You're going to hold him responsible for that?

 

I'm not fighting it Maven, I already said I understand why this is INT.  Balkhawk changed it up a bit (compared to the OP) and I was looking at it from a 'literal' sense, however, I understand the application of the rule, and why.  Confusing, but at least I KNOW what I'm trying to say!

[ALStripes17]

To me it looked like the BR saw F1 running across his path and thought that he may have to go left to avoid the collision. No way was this MC. Arms never extended and if he were truly trying to truck the pitcher, BR would have gone down as well.

When the ball and fielder are in front of you to the left, one does not go to the left to avoid said ball and fielder.

In a FED game, I would not have hesitated to rule that MC. And I'm surprised the umpires in this NCAA game didn't get an initial MC on the BR.