Interference?

[Thunderheads]

this seems like a possible good discussion ........ 

[scrounge]

Virtually identical in principle to that college play a few years back that bounced off the pitcher's foot and led to a collision with the batter and F3 up the line. If the foot kick isn't considered an attempt to field, then it's clear interference.

[noumpere]

Virtually identical in principle to that college play a few years back that bounced off the pitcher's foot and led to a collision with the batter and F3 up the line. If the foot kick isn't considered an attempt to field, then it's clear interference.

​It has nothing to do with any previous "attempt."  It only matters that F5 (in this instance) still has a play and is not "chasing after a loose ball."

[maven]

The rule is 6.01(a)(10)/7.09(j): it gives 1 fielder protection from hindrance while fielding a batted ball. It makes no exception for deflections, but it does require the umpire to identify just 1 protected fielder. Unintentional hindrance of the fielder is INT: intent is not required.

The fact that this batted ball is deflected is irrelevant to enforcing this rule. Nobody has "misplayed" the ball, because nobody has "played" it: the kick, though clearly intentional, is not an attempt to field the ball, and does not deprive other infielders of the right to protection.

[scrounge]

​It has nothing to do with any previous "attempt."  It only matters that F5 (in this instance) still has a play and is not "chasing after a loose ball."

​I'd say it has everything to do with that. If it bounced off the pitcher's glove instead of his foot, F5 doesn't have any protection and it's potentially obstruction but certainly not interference.

[noumpere]

​I'd say it has everything to do with that. If it bounced off the pitcher's glove instead of his foot, F5 doesn't have any protection and it's potentially obstruction but certainly not interference.

​F5 can still be protected if the ball bounces off the glove.

 

R2 is protected from (unintentional) INT with a deflected ball, but not from INT with a player fielding a deflected ball.

[scrounge]

​F5 can still be protected if the ball bounces off the glove.

 

R2 is protected from (unintentional) INT with a deflected ball, but not from INT with a player fielding a deflected ball.

I don't think we're really disagreeing here....if it bounces and isn't an attempt to field, of course he's still protected. My point was that just like the youtube college play, the foot jab isn't an attempt to field so no fielder protection is lost.

[JaxRolo]

I agree with Interference all day long. Fielder had a play on it!

[RingEmUp]

I agree to be agreeable in this instance as much as it pains me to.

[ricka56]

Highly unlikely, but for the sake of argument, what if F1 chased his own kicked ball and was hindered by R2 ?

[noumpere]

Highly unlikely, but for the sake of argument, what if F1 chased his own kicked ball and was hindered by R2 ?

​Then if he's close enough to it to be fielding it again, it's INT.  If not, it's OBS.

[JaxRolo]

Highly unlikely, but for the sake of argument, what if F1 chased his own kicked ball and was hindered by R2 ?

​Obstruction if its not step and reach.

[ricka56]

​Then if he's close enough to it to be fielding it again, it's INT.  If not, it's OBS.

​So if he chases it 20+ feet and is then within reach of the ball (but now is in R2's path), would F1 re-acquire protection ?

[JaxRolo]

​So if he chases it 20+ feet and is then within reach of the ball (but now is in R2's path), would F1 re-acquire protection ?

​I'm not protecting the same fielder than has to chase his own kicked ball.

OBS

[ElkOil]

The rule is 6.01(a)(10)/7.09(j): it gives 1 fielder protection from hindrance while fielding a batted ball. It makes no exception for deflections, but it does require the umpire to identify just 1 protected fielder. Unintentional hindrance of the fielder is INT: intent is not required.

The fact that this batted ball is deflected is irrelevant to enforcing this rule. Nobody has "misplayed" the ball, because nobody has "played" it: the kick, though clearly intentional, is not an attempt to field the ball, and does not deprive other infielders of the right to protection.

​Could you make the argument that F1 was the one entitled to protection or does that not fly in this scenario?

[maven]

​Could you make the argument that F1 was the one entitled to protection or does that not fly in this scenario?

​Of course: he was protected when he was "fielding" the batted ball. No runner hindered him while he was protected.

Then F5 was protected when he began fielding the batted ball. Then R2 hindered R5. Then the ball became dead by rule when U3 ruled INT.

At that point, nobody was protected.

The end.

[noumpere]

​So if he chases it 20+ feet and is then within reach of the ball (but now is in R2's path), would F1 re-acquire protection ?

​Yes (assuming he still had a play).  That's the exact NCAA play (well, except it was BR on the first base line).

[ricka56]

​Yes (assuming he still had a play).  That's the exact NCAA play (well, except it was BR on the first base line).

​I remember that video...I thought the protest (claiming obstruction) was upheld.

[maven]

​I remember that video...I thought the protest (claiming obstruction) was upheld.

​Not sure we're all talking about the same play. Here's one (very long thread):

That play is addressed in a 2015 NCAA umpire development video, where NCAA judges that the call of INT is correct.

There's also a YouTube video of a different, but similar, play. I can't find that video at the moment.

[lawump]

​So if he chases it 20+ feet and is then within reach of the ball (but now is in R2's path), would F1 re-acquire protection ?

​To give you a simple answer:  Yes (under OBR).

[ricka56]

This is the video that I (and I believe noumpere) was talking about. F1 boots the ball and he collides with BR. BR was called out on the 1B tag (collision was nothing). Below the video there is a comment alluding to a protest where obstruction was ruled and the game had to be resumed from there.

[grayhawk]

This is the video that I (and I believe noumpere)wee talking about. F1 boots the ball and he collides with BR. BR was called out. Below the video there is a comment alluding to a protest where obstruction was ruled and the game had to be resumed from there.

​Would like to have access to the details of the ruling and the protest.  I think the difference between interference and obstruction is razor thin on this play.  NCAA 2-51 A.R. 5:

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.

Was F1 there "ahead of the runner's arrival?"  Was he "in the act of picking up the ball (fielding) when contact was made"?  I think so in both cases, but it's really close.  It's hard to tell from the video what the actual call on the field was.  It almost seems like "nothing" was the call and they just ruled that the ball beat the batter to first.  One thing this is NOT, is "nothing."

[maven]

 

​Would like to have access to the details of the ruling and the protest. 

​I had the same thought. I don't know what the governing body is for CA community college baseball, nor do I trust a player or coach (?) to report the details accurately.

[ricka56]

My memory may be faulty, but I thought that there was an NCAA explanation (obstruction) that I had read the day before we reviewed this play in our HS chapter meeting. Chapter prez called on this 2nd year HS umpire to opine. I said that I read the official obstruction explanation. That's what I remember...but a good attorney could shred my faulty memory to pieces.