This is interference?

[Guest CTom]

NAIA test question,( paraphrased). R1, B1 hits line drive that pitcher touches with glove. Ball then rolls toward second baseman. As R1 is advancing, the ball touches him before second baseman can field ball. No intent by runner and no collision. Ruling per test is R1 is out for interference. Need help with this one.

[maven]

NCAA 8-5-d AR 2: "If a batted ball is deflected by the pitcher and another fielder has a legitimate play to retire a runner, the fielder is protected and a collision by a base runner results in interference." This ruling is not exactly apt for your play, as the issue concerns being struck by the ball rather than a collision. But it clearly supports the concept that INT is still "on the table" after a deflection by F1, so the type of INT in your play would also still be "on."

All codes distinguish — either in rule or by interpretation — between a misplayed or deflected ball that gets away from a fielder, which removes protection from INT, and a ball deflected off the pitcher, which does not.

The rationale is that if a fielder can adjust to a deflection off the pitcher and make a play, then we protect him and require the runner to adjust as well, on pain of INT.

After consulting the (2015) BRD §346, I see that it still cites a 25-year-old FED interp from Rumble according to which it is possible to have an "incidental" collision between fielder and runner that is neither OBS nor INT. NCAA does not allow such contact: on a batted ball, it's always something, never nothing. And I see nothing in FED that would support Rumble's interp — I would never rule that way.

The BRD states that PBUC/OBR adopts the NCAA ruling.

[johnpatrick]

Yes, but that's not the play.  There was no collision, the runner was hit by a deflected ball.  Not sure about NCAA rules, but under OBR this would be nothing.

 

[goody14]

The OP has the ball hitting the runner not the runner hitting the fielder. Wouldn't 8-5-k be the relevant rule. Runner is only out if struck before it has touched a fielder.

 

[Rich Ives]

I'm with goody14. The interference was with he ball, not the fielder.

[noumpere]

Asuming the OP correctly paraphrased the question, I agree it's no interference.

 

Contacting a deflected ball (unintentionally) -- nothing.

Contacting a (protected) fielder after the ball has been deflected -- interference (generally)

[Replacematt]

This is interference. The proper rule in NCAA is 6-2-e. It was deflected, we can assume F5 had a play (it was rolling towards him,) and the runner contacted the ball. 6-2-e states that even after a deflection, if a fielder has a play on the ball, the runner is still required to avoid it. There's a key "and" in the rule that makes this obligation more strict in NCAA.

[Rich Ives]

55 minutes ago, Matt said:

This is interference. The proper rule in NCAA is 6-2-e. It was deflected, we can assume F5 had a play (it was rolling towards him,) and the runner contacted the ball. 6-2-e states that even after a deflection, if a fielder has a play on the ball, the runner is still required to avoid it. There's a key "and" in the rule that makes this obligation more strict in NCAA.

It's only interference if the deflected ball is headed to a fielder BEFORE it touches the runner.  The rule means a ball deflected by a fielder, not the deflection caused by it hitting the runner.

Why it is inconsistent with other rules is a mystery.

And if a play is a legitimate chance to retire a runner do you have to judge that the fielder could get a runner out after cleanly fielding the deflected ball?  

 

[Replacematt]

4 minutes ago, Rich Ives said:

It's only interference if the deflected ball is headed to a fielder BEFORE it touches the runner.  The rule means a ball deflected by a fielder, not the deflection caused by it hitting the runner.

Why it is inconsistent with other rules is a mystery.

And if a play is a legitimate chance to retire a runner do you have to judge that the fielder could get a runner out after cleanly fielding the deflected ball?  

 

It was headed to the fielder. The play says it was rolling to F5, then it was touched by the runner.

[Jimurray]

2 hours ago, Matt said:

It was headed to the fielder. The play says it was rolling to F5, then it was touched by the runner.

Doesn't 6-1-c conlict with 6-2-e?

c.    If a fair-hit ball passes by all infielders or it is touched by a fielder and then
touches a runner or an umpire, the ball is in play and the runner is not out.
If said ball should touch the runner or umpire while still in flight, thereafter
it shall be considered a ground ball. It cannot be caught as a fly ball.

[goody14]

 

5 minutes ago, Jimurray said:

Doesn't 6-1-c conlict with 6-2-e?

c.    If a fair-hit ball passes by all infielders or it is touched by a fielder and then
touches a runner or an umpire, the ball is in play and the runner is not out.
If said ball should touch the runner or umpire while still in flight, thereafter
it shall be considered a ground ball. It cannot be caught as a fly ball.

I don't think so (or at least I don't think it is supposed to - although it does look like they changed out 'or's for an 'and').

The note in 6-2-e Exception states: 

If a fair ball goes through or by an infielder and touches a runner immediately in back
of him or touches the runner after having been deflected by a fielder, the umpire shall not
declare the runner out for being touched by a batted ball. In making such a decision, the
umpire must be convinced that the ball passed through, or by, the infielder and that no
other infielder had a chance to make a play on the ball (emphasis mine).

Carl has this to say in the BRD:

331 INTERFERENCE BY: RUNNER: w/BATTED BALL:
AFTER IT: TOUCHES A FIELDER
FED: After any infielder has touched a batted ball, interference
shall not be called if the ball hits a runner, even when another fielder has
a play on the ball. (8-4-2k) 

NCAA: Same as FED. (6-1c)

 

[Jimurray]

24 minutes ago, goody14 said:

 

I don't think so (or at least I don't think it is supposed to - although it does look like they changed out 'or's for an 'and').

The note in 6-2-e Exception states: 

If a fair ball goes through or by an infielder and touches a runner immediately in back
of him or touches the runner after having been deflected by a fielder, the umpire shall not
declare the runner out for being touched by a batted ball. In making such a decision, the
umpire must be convinced that the ball passed through, or by, the infielder and that no
other infielder had a chance to make a play on the ball (emphasis mine).

Carl has this to say in the BRD:

331 INTERFERENCE BY: RUNNER: w/BATTED BALL:
AFTER IT: TOUCHES A FIELDER
FED: After any infielder has touched a batted ball, interference
shall not be called if the ball hits a runner, even when another fielder has
a play on the ball. (8-4-2k) 

NCAA: Same as FED. (6-1c)

 

It appears they have confused @matt and the NAIA test writer and me:

2013 6-2-e. A fair-hit ball touches a runner in fair territory before touching an infielder or
an umpire and before passing all infielders, other than the pitcher. Runner(s)
advance if forced (see 8-5-k);

2015 6-2-e.    A fair-hit ball touches a runner in fair territory before touching an infielder
or an umpire and before passing an infielder who has a chance to make a play

editorial reason for change: 6-2-e Defines the circumstances of an immediate dead ball when
a fair hit ball touches a runner. Additionally, it makes the
rule consistent with the wording in 8-5-k

8-5-k.    The runner, including a runner in contact with a base, is hit while in fair
territory by a batted ball before it has touched a fielder or passed all infielders
who have a chance to make a play on the ball, other than the pitcher. If two
runners are hit by the same fair ball, only the first runner is out (see 6-2-e).

[Rich Ives]

3 hours ago, Matt said:

It was headed to the fielder. The play says it was rolling to F5, then it was touched by the runner.

How about the question - do you consider it there is a chance a fielder fieldng a deflected ball would have a opportunity to get an out.  any deflections slow it down to the point where there would be no play.

[Replacematt]

3 hours ago, Rich Ives said:

How about the question - do you consider it there is a chance a fielder fieldng a deflected ball would have a opportunity to get an out.  any deflections slow it down to the point where there would be no play.

What is the question?

[Replacematt]

5 hours ago, Jimurray said:

It appears they have confused @matt and the NAIA test writer and me:

2013 6-2-e. A fair-hit ball touches a runner in fair territory before touching an infielder or
an umpire and before passing all infielders, other than the pitcher. Runner(s)
advance if forced (see 8-5-k);

2015 6-2-e.    A fair-hit ball touches a runner in fair territory before touching an infielder
or an umpire and before passing an infielder who has a chance to make a play

editorial reason for change: 6-2-e Defines the circumstances of an immediate dead ball when
a fair hit ball touches a runner. Additionally, it makes the
rule consistent with the wording in 8-5-k

8-5-k.    The runner, including a runner in contact with a base, is hit while in fair
territory by a batted ball before it has touched a fielder or passed all infielders
who have a chance to make a play on the ball, other than the pitcher. If two
runners are hit by the same fair ball, only the first runner is out (see 6-2-e).

Until this thread, I would have never would have thought of this as interference. I'm going to piece together a couple thoughts that have been presented here. 

The plain language of 6-2-e would have this as INT.

The plain language of 6-1-c would not have this as INT.

The question concerning 8-5-k then becomes an issue of if the modifier "other than the pitcher" modifies just the last dependent clause "passed all infielders who have a chance to make a play on the ball," or the entire clause. A strict reading (given the lack of the Oxford comma) would have it modify the whole thing, which would then mean that a pitcher is excluded from "touched a fielder." That would also support a ruling of INT in the OP...but I'm not quite so sure that this rule was intended to read that way.

Thus, while I don't think this is INT personally, there's something in my gut that tells me the wording in 6-2-e (including the word "and") was deliberate, and now matches implications from 8-5-k. Given that 6-1-c is more of a general rule as opposed to one with any specificity, I'm leaning towards NCAA wanting this called INT.

[indianaumpire15]

NCAA 8-2-g

If a fair ball touches a base runner in fair territory before the ball has touched or passed all infielders, other than the pitcher, the ball is dead, the runner is out and the batter-runner is awarded first base.

Seems pretty straightforward for NCAA.

[Jimurray]

2 hours ago, indianaumpire15 said:

NCAA 8-2-g

If a fair ball touches a base runner in fair territory before the ball has touched or passed all infielders, other than the pitcher, the ball is dead, the runner is out and the batter-runner is awarded first base.

Seems pretty straightforward for NCAA.

You need to read the whole thread and parse the citations. It's not straightfoward based on the NCAA wording. It is straightfoward based upon what we all think we know about a runner unintentionally being hit by a ball deflected by a fielder.

[goody14]

I am still in the camp of no interference. There are 4 potential rules that cover this: 6-1-c, 6-2-e, 8-2-g, and 8-5-k.

6-1-c:

c.    If a fair-hit ball passes by all infielders or it is touched by a fielder and then
touches a runner or an umpire, the ball is in play and the runner is not out.
If said ball should touch the runner or umpire while still in flight, thereafter
it shall be considered a ground ball. It cannot be caught as a fly ball.

This clearly states if a ball is touched by a fielder the ball is still in play and the runner is not out.

6-2-e:

e.    A fair-hit ball touches a runner in fair territory before touching an infielder
or an umpire and before passing an infielder who has a chance to make a play
on the ball, other than the pitcher.

This one seems a bit muddier, but I think it is just bad sentence construction. I don't think the 'and' in this sentence is a Boolean 'and', I think it is just linking together examples of when the rule would not result in a dead ball. Rewritten as two sentences: "The ball is dead when a fair hit touches a runner before touching a fielder. The ball is dead when a fair hit touches a runner before passing an infielder who had a chance to make a play".

You might say I am stretching the meaning of the word 'and' Bill Clinton style to fit my point, but note, that there is language in the book, attached as an exception and a note to this rule that states:   Note:If a fair ball goes through or by an infielder and touches a runner immediately in back of him or touches the runner after having been deflected by fielder, the umpire shall not declare the runner out for being touched by a batted ball.

This section clearly states a runner being touched by a deflected ball causes the umpire to not declare the runner out.

8-2-g: 

g.    If a fair ball touches a base runner in fair territory before the ball has touched
or passed all infielders, other than the pitcher, the ball is dead, the runner is
out and the batter-runner is awarded first base; or

I think the phrase 'other than the pitcher' applies to the passed all infielder clause.  So, I think this one is pretty clear. If the ball touches an infielder there is no interference. Although reading in isolation, I can see how one would think the 'other than the pitcher' clause applies to touching the ball as well.

8-2-k: 

k.    The runner, including a runner in contact with a base, is hit while in fair
territory by a batted ball before it has touched a fielder or passed all infielders
who have a chance to make a play on the ball, other than the pitcher. If two
runners are hit by the same fair ball, only the first runner is out

In this one the phrase "other than the pitcher" clearly applies to the clause "passed all infielders who have a chance to make a play on the ball". In my opinion, this one is written in a way to easily see a touched ball hitting a runner is not out.

Where does that leave us?

4 rules:

• 2 of them are written in a way that is reasonable to say a deflected ball striking a runner does not cause an out
• 1 rule written with an odd 'and' in the middle that could be read as the ball has to be deflected AND by all fielders with a chance to field it to not call a runner out. But, this rule has a sample play written in it that states a deflected ball does not cause it to be out
• 1 rule written in a sort of nebulous way but I still think supports deflected balls not subjecting a runner to be out if hit by it

Add to it the BRD and I think the test is off. Of course, the test is the ultimate trump card so what do I know.

 

[indianaumpire15]

8 hours ago, Jimurray said:

You need to read the whole thread and parse the citations. It's not straightfoward based on the NCAA wording. It is straightfoward based upon what we all think we know about a runner unintentionally being hit by a ball deflected by a fielder.

I did read the whole thread.  I also read all the citations, but it seems that reference I used was exactly what the book says they want us to do.  And it was the correct answer on the test.  I mean, I think there is some confusion about it, as one cite says one thing, another something else, but it seems that based on the book and the test, this is how NCAA rule sets want that particular situation handled.  But to each his own.  I can see all sides of it.

[Rich Ives]

12 hours ago, Matt said:

What is the question?

Try 3:

If the deflected ball is moving so slowly that, even if the fielder picked up the ball,  there would be no possible play on any runner is it still interference?

[Replacematt]

3 hours ago, Rich Ives said:

Try 3:

If the deflected ball is moving so slowly that, even if the fielder picked up the ball,  there would be no possible play on any runner is it still interference?

Let's take the deflection out for a second. We would have an out regardless of whether there there was no possible play (due to velocity) on an undeflected ball.

If, and that's a big if, NCAA does not consider a deflection by the pitcher to remove the runner's responsibility to avoid a batted ball, I see no reason why this would be differentiated from an undeflected ball, and the runner is out.

[catsbackr]

So, what's the freaking answer?

[maven]

1 minute ago, catsbackr said:

So, what's the freaking answer?

The test says: runner INT.

[Guest CTom]

On ‎3‎/‎6‎/‎2016 at 10:15 AM, Guest CTom said:

NAIA test question,( paraphrased). R1, B1 hits line drive that pitcher touches with glove. Ball then rolls toward second baseman. As R1 is advancing, the ball touches him before second baseman can field ball. No intent by runner and no collision. Ruling per test is R1 is out for interference. Need help with this one.

Well, I guess the only thing we know for sure is there is a lot of confusion regarding this. The other thing we know is that there are some smart guys on this site.. "modifiers", "Boolean", "dependent clause", "Oxford  commas". Very  impressive. I wonder if there is a site where English professors get together and discuss the FPSR and step balks.

Do we all agree that this would not be interference in OBR? OBR 6.01a11 is clear and straightforward that it is not interference. Do we agree NCAA rules are supposed to be essentially the same as OBR? It says so right in the book. Why then would the NAIA make this interference when every other level of baseball does not. I stick with the opinion that the test has it wrong. I don't imagine I am the only one who took the test who feels that way. It is apparent to me that the NCAA rules regarding this are very poorly written and sentences have been torn apart and put back together erroneously. Look at the confusion this relatively simple play has caused. FYI, I get silence from NAIA/NCAA.

I located a thread on this site where some of this was talked about recently. This is a prime example of why words... even little ones... can make a big difference and the differences should not be dismissed lightly.

Thanks for chiming in everyone.

[Dave Van Zummeren]

Yeah in OBR , no way this would be interference, once it hits the pitcher it becomes a fair bounding ball, and that is it. A runner is only out for interference when a fair batted ball touches the runner before any fielder. Unless the runner intentionally kicks or something like that, I have " thats nothing" 

[Jimurray]

2 hours ago, Guest CTom said:

Well, I guess the only thing we know for sure is there is a lot of confusion regarding this. The other thing we know is that there are some smart guys on this site.. "modifiers", "Boolean", "dependent clause", "Oxford  commas". Very  impressive. I wonder if there is a site where English professors get together and discuss the FPSR and step balks.

Do we all agree that this would not be interference in OBR? OBR 6.01a11 is clear and straightforward that it is not interference. Do we agree NCAA rules are supposed to be essentially the same as OBR? It says so right in the book. Why then would the NAIA make this interference when every other level of baseball does not. I stick with the opinion that the test has it wrong. I don't imagine I am the only one who took the test who feels that way. It is apparent to me that the NCAA rules regarding this are very poorly written and sentences have been torn apart and put back together erroneously. Look at the confusion this relatively simple play has caused. FYI, I get silence from NAIA/NCAA.

I located a thread on this site where some of this was talked about recently. This is a prime example of why words... even little ones... can make a big difference and the differences should not be dismissed lightly.

Thanks for chiming in everyone.

Who administers the NAIA test? Is it online?