pitcher and batter collide on 1st base line

[johnnyg08]

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.

Amen. Live action and the first time I saw this I will admit that I wouldn't have EJ'd either. It's pretty clear on replay, but I'm not going to arm chair umpire when we've all looked at and analyzed the play 9 million times and they only had one shot at it.

[Dash Riprock]

 

 I'm surprised the umpires in this NCAA game didn't get an initial MC on the BR.

 

They don't have that rule in NCAA.

[ALStripes17]

I'm surprised the umpires in this NCAA game didn't get an initial MC on the BR.

They don't have that rule in NCAA.

So get flagrant contact

[Dash Riprock]

 

 

I'm surprised the umpires in this NCAA game didn't get an initial MC on the BR.

They don't have that rule in NCAA.

 

So get flagrant contact

 

NCAA Fight Rule (in part):  Any physical abuse of an opposing player, including attempting to strike with the arms, hands, legs, feet or equipment...  The penalty is EJ + a four-game suspension (first offense, then it gets harsher).

 

I certainly have that on both F3 and the BR later on, but not on the initial contact.  Had everyone gone on his merry way after the contact, I would have had nothing but vanilla interference.  4+ games is pretty harsh.  I'd want to be sure it was warranted.

 

Unless, of course, the kid is an a$$hole.  Then by all means, let's crush a dream!

[Fittske24]

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

The note referenced from the MLBUM is not the "step and a reach" or "immediate vicinity" provision at play here. That note is more geared to a player who has cleanly fielded a batted ball and is attempting to make a play or subsequent play. As a matter of fact, I don't think OBR has a "step and a reach" provision that protects a fielder who errors in his initial attempt to field a batted ball.

In OBR, this play Is more likely to be obstruction because the player only has to avoid a player in the immediate act of fielding a batted ball. Once the pitcher errors, all bets are off. The defense is penalized for not making the play cleanly and being in the immediate path of the runner.

In NCAA, there is a provision under the definition of interference (2-50 AR-3): "If a fielder has a chance to field a batted ball, but misplays it and while attempting to recover it, the ball is in the fielder’s immediate reach and the fielder is contacted by the base runner attempting to reach a base, interference shall be called." This A.R. protects the fielder even if he errors, as long as the ball is still in immediate reach of the original fielder. If I were a betting man, I think this provision was put in place to prohibit plays like this from occurring.

[Replacematt]

 

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

The note referenced from the MLBUM is not the "step and a reach" or "immediate vicinity" provision at play here. That note is more geared to a player who has cleanly fielded a batted ball and is attempting to make a play or subsequent play. As a matter of fact, I don't think OBR has a "step and a reach" provision that protects a fielder who errors in his initial attempt to field a batted ball.

In OBR, this play Is more likely to be obstruction because the player only has to avoid a player in the immediate act of fielding a batted ball. Once the pitcher errors, all bets are off. The defense is penalized for not making the play cleanly and being in the immediate path of the runner.

In NCAA, there is a provision under the definition of interference (2-50 AR-3): "If a fielder has a chance to field a batted ball, but misplays it and while attempting to recover it, the ball is in the fielder’s immediate reach and the fielder is contacted by the base runner attempting to reach a base, interference shall be called." This A.R. protects the fielder even if he errors, as long as the ball is still in immediate reach of the original fielder. If I were a betting man, I think this provision was put in place to prohibit plays like this from occurring.

 

 

Yes, it does (it uses the phrase "immediate reach.") It uses this very type of play to show interference in MLBUM. It was the cite I referenced earlier.

[Replacematt]

 

 

I'm surprised the umpires in this NCAA game didn't get an initial MC on the BR.

They don't have that rule in NCAA.

 

So get flagrant contact

 

 

Already discussed. Fielder didn't possess the ball.

[ALStripes17]

I'm surprised the umpires in this NCAA game didn't get an initial MC on the BR.

They don't have that rule in NCAA.

So get flagrant contact

Already discussed. Fielder didn't possess the ball.

Then you have OBS, DDB. BR is safe at 1st and is ejected for the flagrant contact.

[grayhawk]

Fittske, I humbly disagree with respect to OBR.

 

MLBUM 43 (4) (Page 47 from 2012):

 

With bases loaded, batter hits a sharp ground ball that deflects off of the shortstop and starts to roll away from him.  As 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 is 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 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).

 

Emphasis theirs.

[Replacematt]

 

 

 

 

I'm surprised the umpires in this NCAA game didn't get an initial MC on the BR.

They don't have that rule in NCAA.

 

So get flagrant contact

 

Already discussed. Fielder didn't possess the ball.

 

Then you have OBS, DDB. BR is safe at 1st and is ejected for the flagrant contact.

 

No, the fielder is within a step and a reach of a batted ball. Also, again, there is no flagrant conduct penalty (at least seemingly) when the fielder is not in possession of the ball.

 

Seriously, read the thread, please.

[zm1283]

This is not ejection-worthy in NCAA and maybe not even in a high school game for me.

 

I still have interference.

[UmpJM]

 

In OBR, this play Is more likely to be obstruction because the player only has to avoid a player in the immediate act of fielding a batted ball. Once the pitcher errors, all bets are off. The defense is penalized for not making the play cleanly and being in the immediate path of the runner.

 

 

Fittske,

 

Thanks for playing, but that is INCORRECT. (My earlier cite was simply in response to maven's assertion about precisely when the "act of fielding" ends. I know he'd do the same for me... ;-) )

 

Both the JEA and J/R include the "step and reach" provision for the fielder's protection, which the MLBUM describes thusly (6.23):

 

(4) With bases loaded, batter hits a sharp ground ball that deflects off of the shortstop and starts

to roll away from him. As the shortstop starts to go after the ball, the runner from second collides

with him.

 

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 Casebook Comments to Official

Baseball Rule 2.00 (Obstruction).) However, if the ball is not within reach of the fielder after it

deflects off him (i.e., the fielder must chase after the ball), the fielder must then avoid the runner, ...

 

 

JM

[BT_Blue]

I have INT from the shear diviation of the runner's path. I can not, in any way in my mind, find reason for the BR to move INTO the path of F1/F33 besides to try and interfere with the play.

Think about it. How often to you see a player purposely move into a tag? My guess is never!

By the way, I do not have an ejection for the contqct with the intent to injure (malicious contact if you will, though it has already been established that that wording does not exist in the NCAA book). However, I do of course, have the ejections of the BR and F3 for the obvious reasons stated above.

Also, did anyone notice how close in to the altercation all the umpires were? Feels like there would be no way for them to have an opportunity to see if any punches are thrown or what not. Also being that close to the scrum could invite an attack ON the umpire and he would have no idea.

[BT_Blue]

Yesterday I was watching the replay of the Miami-Viginia game from two nights ago and I kept seeing the PU not being set when the play happened at first. He was still running up the first base line when the play happens. It looks good to everyone else, but looks like fake over hustle to us umpires.

it seems that the plate umpire in this game was doing the same thing on this play and was not set for the contact when it happened.

[ALStripes17]

I'm surprised the umpires in this NCAA game didn't get an initial MC on the BR.

They don't have that rule in NCAA.

So get flagrant contact

Already discussed. Fielder didn't possess the ball.

Second thought: so there is no such thing as flagrant contact unless the fielder has the ball?

So if I'm a BR that just hit an impending double, I can round 1B, deviate from my path to push through F3, then continue on my merry way to 2B, and that would be nothing?

I am on the same page as you in regards to INT and protecting the fielder. My issues rise from the BR completely deviating from his original line to INTENTIONALLY run through the F1. Live action - tough to see. But if that is seen, the BR is tossed.

[Replacematt]

 

 

 

 

I'm surprised the umpires in this NCAA game didn't get an initial MC on the BR.

They don't have that rule in NCAA.

 

So get flagrant contact

 

Already discussed. Fielder didn't possess the ball.

 

Second thought: so there is no such thing as flagrant contact unless the fielder has the ball?

So if I'm a BR that just hit an impending double, I can round 1B, deviate from my path to push through F3, then continue on my merry way to 2B, and that would be nothing?

I am on the same page as you in regards to INT and protecting the fielder. My issues rise from the BR completely deviating from his original line to INTENTIONALLY run through the F1. Live action - tough to see. But if that is seen, the BR is tossed.

 

Sigh...

 

http://umpire-empire.com/index.php/topic/56436-pitcher-and-batter-collide-on-1st-base-line/page-2#entry212496

http://umpire-empire.com/index.php/topic/56436-pitcher-and-batter-collide-on-1st-base-line/page-2#entry212508

[ALStripes17]

That condescending attitude is not going to make you many friends.

Since no one wants to offer up ways to remedy the situation within the ruleset, some resolve to continue asking questions.

The Fight Rule can be imposed in this situation prior to any actual fight breaking out. You could write off the initial collision as physical abuse.

[Replacematt]

That condescending attitude is not going to make you many friends.

Since no one wants to offer up ways to remedy the situation within the ruleset, some resolve to continue asking questions.

The Fight Rule can be imposed in this situation prior to any actual fight breaking out. You could write off the initial collision as physical abuse.

 

So, you don't read the thread, you ask questions that have already been discussed, and after an implication and a direct request that you read the thread, you accuse me of being condescending? Maybe you should, I don't know, read the thread next time, instead of implying that people should repeat themselves. That's very self-centered, if you ask me.

 

And no, there actually has to be a fight to invoke the fight rule.

[UmpJM]

ALStripes,

 

Can you help me find the "physical abuse" rule in the NCAA book?

 

I can't seem to find it.

 

JM

[Replacematt]

ALStripes,

 

Can you help me find the "physical abuse" rule in the NCAA book?

 

I can't seem to find it.

 

JM

 

It's 5-16-a, and not relevant on contact between a runner and a fielder, unless some sort of "combative" action happens.

[Dash Riprock]

 

NCAA doesn't have MC; it has a fight rule and a collision rule (which applies only if the fielder is clearly in possession of the ball).

I have (obvious) INT, then a fight rule violation on F3 after the BR passes 1st base (but not on the initial collision), then a fight rule violation on the BR for retaliating, then a whole bunch of fight rule violations for leaving the bench/position on the field and participating in the fight. The penalty is an EJ + a four-game suspension (first offense).

 

I think they would want us to call it here, but I agree; 8-7 does specify a fielder in possession. I can't imagine them saying that it's legal to truck a catcher simply because he's bobbling the ball vice having it in his hand.

 

That bothers me too - they even use the word clearly.  It doesn't make sense that a catcher (or any fielder) could be protected from obstruction, but not protected under the collision rule.  They should have changed the collision rule to include a fielder 'in the act' when they changed the obstruction rule. 

 

And I was wrong - NCAA rules DO include malicious and flagrant contact.  They are in the collision rule.

[Replacematt]

And I was wrong - NCAA rules DO include malicious and flagrant contact.  They are in the collision rule.

 

I don't refer to NCAA's collision rule as MC, because then it gets conflated with FED MC. 

[BalkHawk]

I 'like' when people cite a rule.

[Jimurray]

I'm surprised the umpires in this NCAA game didn't get an initial MC on the BR.

They don't have that rule in NCAA.

So get flagrant contact

 

Already discussed. Fielder didn't possess the ball.

Let's say he did come up with the ball as he was trucked. What do you have then. Let's say that he did come up with the ball and dropped it as he was trucked. What do you have then.

[BalkHawk]

I'm surprised the umpires in this NCAA game didn't get an initial MC on the BR.

They don't have that rule in NCAA. So get flagrant contact  

Already discussed. Fielder didn't possess the ball.

Let's say he did come up with the ball as he was trucked. What do you have then. Let's say that he did come up with the ball and dropped it as he was trucked. What do you have then.

Barring MC, I've got an out, and a safe.