pitcher and batter collide on 1st base line

[noumpere]

Appreciate all of you for your input. Yes I am a new umpire and I am strictly participating in an effort to learn. So with that being said should this have been ruled interference du to BR initiating contact with the fielder?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Most think so.  The NCAA hasn't publically commented yet.

[grayhawk]

Appreciate all of you for your input. Yes I am a new umpire and I am strictly participating in an effort to learn. So with that being said should this have been ruled interference du to BR initiating contact with the fielder?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

You will find that has been answered many times in this thread already.

[Larry in TN]

After five pages of this, I'm starting to think that fight had nothing to do with the contact.

"Hey! That's interference!"

"No, that was obstruction!!"

"INTERFERENCE!!!"

"OBSTRUCTION!!!"

 

Right, and most of the players on defense are calling for "obstruction" while most of the players on offense are calling for "interference"!  

 

 

Appreciate all of you for your input. Yes I am a new umpire and I am strictly participating in an effort to learn. So with that being said should this have been ruled interference du to BR initiating contact with the fielder?

 

Yes, but to be more precise, he it out for interference when he "hinders a fielder attempting to make a play on a batter ball."  Contact is not required, only that the defensive player is hindered.

 

7.08—Any runner is out when –

(b) intentionally interferes with a thrown ball; or hinders a fielder attempting to make a play on a batted ball; (NOTE: A runner who is adjudged to have hindered a fielder who is attempting to make a play on a batted ball is out whether it was intentional or not);

[Omega194]

After five pages of this, I'm starting to think that fight had nothing to do with the contact.

"Hey! That's interference!"

"No, that was obstruction!!"

"INTERFERENCE!!!"

"OBSTRUCTION!!!"

Right, and most of the players on defense are calling for "obstruction" while most of the players on offense are calling for "interference"!

Appreciate all of you for your input. Yes I am a new umpire and I am strictly participating in an effort to learn. So with that being said should this have been ruled interference du to BR initiating contact with the fielder?

Yes, but to be more precise, he it out for interference when he "hinders a fielder attempting to make a play on a batter ball." Contact is not required, only that the defensive player is hindered.

7.08—Any runner is out when –

(b) intentionally interferes with a thrown ball; or hinders a fielder attempting to make a play on a batted ball; (NOTE: A runner who is adjudged to have hindered a fielder who is attempting to make a play on a batted ball is out whether it was intentional or not);

After five pages of this, I'm starting to think that fight had nothing to do with the contact.

"Hey! That's interference!"

"No, that was obstruction!!"

"INTERFERENCE!!!"

"OBSTRUCTION!!!"

Right, and most of the players on defense are calling for "obstruction" while most of the players on offense are calling for "interference"!

Appreciate all of you for your input. Yes I am a new umpire and I am strictly participating in an effort to learn. So with that being said should this have been ruled interference du to BR initiating contact with the fielder?

Yes, but to be more precise, he it out for interference when he "hinders a fielder attempting to make a play on a batter ball." Contact is not required, only that the defensive player is hindered.

7.08—Any runner is out when –

(b) intentionally interferes with a thrown ball; or hinders a fielder attempting to make a play on a batted ball; (NOTE: A runner who is adjudged to have hindered a fielder who is attempting to make a play on a batted ball is out whether it was intentional or not);

[Omega194]

Thank you for your response @Larry in TN

[Omega194]

@mjr_2013 greatly appreciated. I was looking for the correct wording

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[UmpTTS43]

There are valid arguments concerning the fielder having an opportunity to field the ball, subsequently failing. Given more time, I might take that stance in this discussion. However, I believe the only call to be made in this situation is the call of INT. If the powers that be at the NCAA decide to support the non call, it would be surprising and further muddy their interpretations.

Concerning the collision, although the fielder did not have "clear possession of the ball", I believe an argument could be made that the runner intentionally created the contact and appropriate penalties could be enforced. Out plus EJ. The NCAA beats into our head that safety is priority one. Since next year is a new cycle in rule changes, I could see the wording of 8-7 changed so that flagrant or malicious contact with a fielder not in possession of the ball should result in appropriate penalties.

[mjr_2013]

Is the NCAA going to/are they expected to say something on this?

[johnnyg08]

There are valid arguments concerning the fielder having an opportunity to field the ball, subsequently failing. Given more time, I might take that stance in this discussion. However, I believe the only call to be made in this situation is the call of INT. If the powers that be at the NCAA decide to support the non call, it would be surprising and further muddy their interpretations.

Concerning the collision, although the fielder did not have "clear possession of the ball", I believe an argument could be made that the runner intentionally created the contact and appropriate penalties could be enforced. Out plus EJ. The NCAA beats into our head that safety is priority one. Since next year is a new cycle in rule changes, I could see the wording of 8-7 changed so that flagrant or malicious contact with a fielder not in possession of the ball should result in appropriate penalties.

Thank you. I've been waiting for you to chime in.

[UmpJM]

Is the NCAA going to/are they expected to say something on this?

 

mjr,

 

I would be surprised if they didn't.

 

JM

[johnnyg08]

It's early enough in the season and this play is blowing up the internet umpire circles.

I hope they offer an interpretation before the 2015 rules meeting.

[BalkHawk]

...I believe an argument could be made that the runner intentionally created the contact and appropriate penalties could be enforced. Out plus EJ...

Please cite the rule and appropriate penalty to which you refer.

[Jimurray]

There are valid arguments concerning the fielder having an opportunity to field the ball, subsequently failing. Given more time, I might take that stance in this discussion. However, I believe the only call to be made in this situation is the call of INT. If the powers that be at the NCAA decide to support the non call, it would be surprising and further muddy their interpretations.

Concerning the collision, although the fielder did not have "clear possession of the ball", I believe an argument could be made that the runner intentionally created the contact and appropriate penalties could be enforced. Out plus EJ. The NCAA beats into our head that safety is priority one. Since next year is a new cycle in rule changes, I could see the wording of 8-7 changed so that flagrant or malicious contact with a fielder not in possession of the ball should result in appropriate penalties.

NCAA protects a fielder who misplays a batted ball, chases after it, and then is in the act of picking it up.

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.

Given that philosophy, I believe the OP should be INT.

[law_reb]

 

There are valid arguments concerning the fielder having an opportunity to field the ball, subsequently failing. Given more time, I might take that stance in this discussion. However, I believe the only call to be made in this situation is the call of INT. If the powers that be at the NCAA decide to support the non call, it would be surprising and further muddy their interpretations.

Concerning the collision, although the fielder did not have "clear possession of the ball", I believe an argument could be made that the runner intentionally created the contact and appropriate penalties could be enforced. Out plus EJ. The NCAA beats into our head that safety is priority one. Since next year is a new cycle in rule changes, I could see the wording of 8-7 changed so that flagrant or malicious contact with a fielder not in possession of the ball should result in appropriate penalties.

NCAA protects a fielder who misplays a batted ball, chases after it, and then is in the act of picking it up.

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.

Given that philosophy, I believe the OP should be INT.

 

I am not an NCAA umpire.  I am only reading the above A.R.5, which I'm assuming is from the NCAA.  If the fielder is in the act of picking up the ball when contact is made = interference.  If he is chasing the deflected ball when contact is made = obstruction.  That makes sense, even to a high school umpire(me).  In the OP the fielder had attempted to pick up the ball, and he missed.  No contact was made during that attempt to pick up the ball.  The fielder was not yet "chasing" the ball, he was just standing when contact was made.  Possibly to make a tag, possibly to brace for impact, no one really knows.  It's hard to tell from the video if he even knows he doesn't have the ball.  This play seems to hinge on the interpretation of whether or not he was still considered to be fielding the ball.  In A.R.5 it has (fielding) following the statement: in the act of picking up the ball.  Is that defining "fielding" to be, "in the act of picking up the ball"?  In the OP, can he be considered to still be in the act of picking up the ball?    

[Richvee]

I'm trying to figure how any interp can make it legal to veer off a direct path between the runner and the bag to plow a fielder... regardless of if he's fielding, bobbling or just standing there. If this is legal what's to stop a runner, on a clean single to the outfield, with R3 standing 8 feet behind 1B, to just truck F3 instead of making a normal turn towards 2B when rounding 1B? 

[Replacematt]

I'm trying to figure how any interp can make it legal to veer off a direct path between the runner and the bag to plow a fielder... regardless of if he's fielding, bobbling or just standing there. If this is legal what's to stop a runner, on a clean single to the outfield, with R3 standing 8 feet behind 1B, to just truck F3 instead of making a normal turn towards 2B when rounding 1B? 

 

Just for comparison...there's no rule against that in straight OBR.

[basejester]

If this is legal what's to stop a runner, on a clean single to the outfield, with R3 standing 8 feet behind 1B, to just truck F3 instead of making a normal turn towards 2B when rounding 1B? 

 

If it's relevent to making a play, then it's interference.

 

If it's not, I'd say it's assault and not legal under the law of the state.  It might have no penalty (other than ejection) under baseball rules.

[grayhawk]

 

 

There are valid arguments concerning the fielder having an opportunity to field the ball, subsequently failing. Given more time, I might take that stance in this discussion. However, I believe the only call to be made in this situation is the call of INT. If the powers that be at the NCAA decide to support the non call, it would be surprising and further muddy their interpretations.

Concerning the collision, although the fielder did not have "clear possession of the ball", I believe an argument could be made that the runner intentionally created the contact and appropriate penalties could be enforced. Out plus EJ. The NCAA beats into our head that safety is priority one. Since next year is a new cycle in rule changes, I could see the wording of 8-7 changed so that flagrant or malicious contact with a fielder not in possession of the ball should result in appropriate penalties.

NCAA protects a fielder who misplays a batted ball, chases after it, and then is in the act of picking it up.

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.

Given that philosophy, I believe the OP should be INT.

 

I am not an NCAA umpire.  I am only reading the above A.R.5, which I'm assuming is from the NCAA.  If the fielder is in the act of picking up the ball when contact is made = interference.  If he is chasing the deflected ball when contact is made = obstruction.  That makes sense, even to a high school umpire(me).  In the OP the fielder had attempted to pick up the ball, and he missed.  No contact was made during that attempt to pick up the ball.  The fielder was not yet "chasing" the ball, he was just standing when contact was made.  Possibly to make a tag, possibly to brace for impact, no one really knows.  It's hard to tell from the video if he even knows he doesn't have the ball.  This play seems to hinge on the interpretation of whether or not he was still considered to be fielding the ball.  In A.R.5 it has (fielding) following the statement: in the act of picking up the ball.  Is that defining "fielding" to be, "in the act of picking up the ball"?  In the OP, can he be considered to still be in the act of picking up the ball?    

 

 

You are confusing a play where a fielder misplays the ball and it rolls away from him, and one where the ball stays within the fielder's "immediate reach."

 

On the first play, if the fielder is chasing the ball he has to be in the act of picking it up for INT to be called.

On the second, since the ball stayed within his immediate reach, the rule does not specify that he has to be in the act of picking it up for INT to be called.

[Richvee]

 

If this is legal what's to stop a runner, on a clean single to the outfield, with R3 standing 8 feet behind 1B, to just truck F3 instead of making a normal turn towards 2B when rounding 1B? 

 

If it's relevent to making a play, then it's interference.

 

If it's not, I'd say it's assault and not legal under the law of the state.  It might have no penalty (other than ejection) under baseball rules.

 

That's my point. To me, that's a EJ all day. As I believe it should be in the OP. The fact that F1 is in the act of fielding in the OP adds a "baseball rule" of INT along with the EJ. Debatable for sure, but that's my view. 

[johnnyg08]

The SEC crew has indicated that it should have been ruled interference.


I don't recall reading anything in this thread about the EJ's, but there were two EJ's with four game suspensions.

[UmpJM]

johnny,

 

What's your source on the crew saying it should have been interference?

 

JM

[Jimurray]

The SEC crew has indicated that it should have been ruled interference.

I don't recall reading anything in this thread about the EJ's, but there were two EJ's with four game suspensions.

They should allow the offending team coach to have his day in court and give him some days off also. Based on what I peruse on the Internet.

[UmpJM]

.... It's a batted ball--a collision between a runner and fielder on a batted ball is always something.

 

 

Matt,

 

Unless, of course, it's between a catcher and a BR in the immediate vicinity of home plate. Then, it's nothing. Maybe.

 

I agree that the play in the video has to be SOMETHING.

 

JM

[dumbdumb]

Below are the 3 kicked out in the scuffle.

 

"FSU Outfielder DJ Stewart, UF first baseman Zack Powers and Gators’ relief pitcher Danny Young were ejected".

 

Stewart and Powers were given 4 game suspensions.

 

 

 

There was also an ejection later after the scuffle. "UF’s Justin Shafer was ejected in the bottom of the eighth inning after he kicked at FSU catcher Danny De La Calle following a play at the plate".

 

Here was the crew (below)for the game. Umpires -Chambers and Tallent have NCAA post season experience and would know how to handle a situation like this for the NCAA. Mr. Healey is a former MiLBU until 2009. He had worked an Arizona Fall League in 2008 and was invited to MLB Spring Training in 2009 before his release at the end of the 2009 season from the IL. Mr. Bradley formerly worked in MiLB in the IL until 2010 and now works for PBUC.

 

Umpires - HP: Rob Healey 1B: Richie Tallent 2B: Barry Chambers 3B: Jason Bradley

 

No mention of the NCAA or the Assignors giving a interference interpretation in the articles I have been able to pull up. Don't know if the D1 site has given any interpretation yet.

 

And no, just like in the CWS the last 2 years, this play will not be reviewable in the West Coast, ACC, or SEC were it to occur in the Conference Tournament where replay will be used for the 1st time. Only 4 situations are reviewable, for the Tournament just like in the CWS.

 

BIRMINGHAM, Ala. -- The Southeastern Conference will use experimental instant replay rules during its conference baseball tournament in May.

The NCAA Baseball Rules Committee approved the SEC's request to use replay Wednesday. Two other conferences -- the West Coast Conference and the Atlantic Coast Conference -- already gained approval to use replay at their tournaments.

The replay can be used for four situations:

• Deciding if an apparent home run is fair or foul.

• Deciding whether a batted ball is a home run or ground-rule double.

• Spectator interference plays involving home run balls.

• Deciding if a batted ball is fair or foul.

The same system was used at the College World Series in 2012 and 2013, though there were no reviews either year.

[Jimurray]

Below are the 3 kicked out in the scuffle.

 

"FSU Outfielder DJ Stewart, UF first baseman Zack Powers and Gators’ relief pitcher Danny Young were ejected".

 

Stewart and Powers were given 4 game suspensions.

 

 

 

There was also an ejection later after the scuffle. "UF’s Justin Shafer was ejected in the bottom of the eighth inning after he kicked at FSU catcher Danny De La Calle following a play at the plate".

 

Here was the crew (below)for the game. Umpires -Chambers and Tallent have NCAA post season experience and would know how to handle a situation like this for the NCAA. Mr. Healey is a former MiLBU until 2009. He had worked an Arizona Fall League in 2008 and was invited to MLB Spring Training in 2009 before his release at the end of the 2009 season from the IL. Mr. Bradley formerly worked in MiLB in the IL until 2010 and now works for PBUC.

 

Umpires - HP: Rob Healey 1B: Richie Tallent 2B: Barry Chambers 3B: Jason Bradley

 

No mention of the NCAA or the Assignors giving a interference interpretation in the articles I have been able to pull up. Don't know if the D1 site has given any interpretation yet.

 

And no, just like in the CWS the last 2 years, this play will not be reviewable in the West Coast, ACC, or SEC were it to occur in the Conference Tournament where replay will be used for the 1st time. Only 4 situations are reviewable, for the Tournament just like in the CWS.

 

BIRMINGHAM, Ala. -- The Southeastern Conference will use experimental instant replay rules during its conference baseball tournament in May.

The NCAA Baseball Rules Committee approved the SEC's request to use replay Wednesday. Two other conferences -- the West Coast Conference and the Atlantic Coast Conference -- already gained approval to use replay at their tournaments.

The replay can be used for four situations:

• Deciding if an apparent home run is fair or foul.

• Deciding whether a batted ball is a home run or ground-rule double.

• Spectator interference plays involving home run balls.

• Deciding if a batted ball is fair or foul.

The same system was used at the College World Series in 2012 and 2013, though there were no reviews either year.

Replay can't be used for the play but video can be used immediately to determine who to eject.