Correct me if I'm wrong....

[Richvee]

I thought I had a good handle on this type play, now I'm wondering....

With R2 on second moving on the pitch, B1 hits a grounder in the hole at short. F5 comes over to field the ball, but it passes through his legs. As F6 is about to make the play, R2 inadvertently brushes into him.When the play ends, R2 is on third and B1 is on first.

a. the play stands

b. B1 is out

c. R2 is out

d. R2 must return to secon

answer C. regardless of the ball passing F5, even if he deflected it as long as  F6 has a play on the ball, R2 must avoid him. Interference is the call....all codes.  (Different story if the ball hits the runner )

 

[Tborze]

C.

I'm not sure of the deflection part!  

FED 8.4.2 I

 

[grayhawk]

A deflection by F5 is irrelevant in this case IF F6 has a legitimate play.  As you say, if the deflected ball hits the runner (rather than the runner hindering F6), it's nothing unless intentional.

[Richvee]

24 minutes ago, Tborze said:

I'm not sure of the deflection part!  

I am..at least OBR. If an infielder deflects a ground ball, and the ball then contacts a runner, (unintentional on the part of the runner) it is NOT interference, regardless on if another infielder had a play on the ball. However, the runner still has the responsibility of avoiding a fielder who has a play on the ball.

[Richvee]

Chalk up another to Referee Magazine. They've got this play in their quiz this issue, and have "a" has the answer. They really need a rules editor.

[grayhawk]

3 minutes ago, Richvee said:

I am..at least OBR. If an infielder deflects a ground ball, and the ball then contacts a runner, (unintentional on the part of the runner) it is NOT interference, regardless on if another infielder had a play on the ball. However, the runner still has the responsibility of avoiding a fielder who has a play on the ball.

Same in all codes Rich.

[Richvee]

Just now, grayhawk said:

Same in all codes Rich.

I was pretty sure. Just have the MLBUM handy at the moment.

[Jimurray]

21 minutes ago, Richvee said:

Chalk up another to Referee Magazine. They've got this play in their quiz this issue, and have "a" has the answer. They really need a rules editor.

You really need to stop reading Referee for baseball rule cites. I think @lawump is tracking down another of their errors.

[Richvee]

1 hour ago, Jimurray said:

You really need to stop reading Referee for baseball rule cites. I think @lawump is tracking down another of their errors.

You're right. It's a bad habit. But it bothers me. A lot of officials read their magazine, and I'd bet the majority of high school umpires who do read these quizzes take their answers as gospel. It's irresponsible for a publication dedicated to officials to have so many quiz answers wrong issue after issue. And as far as I'm concerned, a little correction two moths later on a back page saying they got the answer wrong doesn't absolve them of their responsibility to the umpire community to be accurate with rule interps. It's embarrassing. 

Sorry....just venting... again...Can you tell it's snowing again here in the east???  I'm losing my mind.

[grayhawk]

You're right. It's a bad habit. But it bothers me. A lot of officials read their magazine, and I'd bet the majority of high school umpires who do read these quizzes take their answers as gospel. It's irresponsible for a publication dedicated to officials to have so many quiz answers wrong issue after issue. And as far as I'm concerned, a little correction two moths later on a back page saying they got the answer wrong doesn't absolve them of their responsibility to the umpire community to be accurate with rule interps. It's embarrassing. 

Sorry....just venting... again...Can you tell it's snowing again here in the east???  I'm losing my mind.

 

No wonder I had Vassar College on Sunday and have Rutgers (Newark) and Ithaca on Friday. They can actually play baseball out here.

[Richvee]

7 minutes ago, grayhawk said:

 

No wonder I had Vassar College on Sunday and have Rutgers (Newark) and Ithaca on Friday. They can actually play baseball out here.

It's been horrible. Not only all the March snow, it's not melting very fast. Temps haven't gotten above  the low forties in weeks.

[Kevin_K]

Why would F5 not be the protected fielder? Just because he did not make the play does not mean he couldn't.

If the umpire judges F5 to be the protected fielder because he is more likely to make the play, contact with F6 ought to be ignored for interference shouldn't it?

 

[Richvee]

3 minutes ago, Kevin_K said:

Why would F5 not be the protected fielder? Just because he did not make the play does not mean he couldn't.

If the umpire judges F5 to be the protected fielder because he is more likely to make the play, contact with F6 ought to be ignored for interference shouldn't it?

 

Only one fielder is protected, true, but that fielder can change as the play develops. Here's the MLBUM case play. I think all codes agree 

 

Runner on 1B one out. Runner is running on the pitch. The batter hits a ground ball back towards the pitcher. The pitcher deflects the ball in the direction of the second baseman. As the runner is running directly to second base, he unintentionally bumps into the second baseman, who is attempting to field the deflected ball.

Ruling- Interference is called and the runner from first is declared out. Even though this is still a batted ball and the runner must avoid the fielder. 

 

[Kevin_K]

Only one fielder is protected, true, but that fielder can change as the play develops. Here's the MLBUM case play. I think all codes agree 

 

Runner on 1B one out. Runner is running on the pitch. The batter hits a ground ball back towards the pitcher. The pitcher deflects the ball in the direction of the second baseman. As the runner is running directly to second base, he unintentionally bumps into the second baseman, who is attempting to field the deflected ball.

Ruling- Interference is called and the runner from first is declared out. Even though this is still a batted ball and the runner must avoid the fielder. 

 

While I understand the scenario in the MLBUM, the play in Referee seems to have three players converging in the same area, a misplay by F5 and what may be nearly simultaneous contact with a different fielder. The case play has a different scenario, albeit similar.

In the OP, R2 was moving on the pitch. That could likely place him somewhere around where the ball would be when F5 misplays it. By offering the protection to F6, does this put R2 in harm's way? If R2 had altered his path to avoid F5 making a play, should R2 then be penalized for a defensive miscue?

I can see both scenarios being called, and no matter which one the umpire chooses, he is going to have some one coming out to have a conversation.

[Richvee]

1 hour ago, Richvee said:

Only one fielder is protected, true, but that fielder can change as the play develops. Here's the MLBUM case play. I think all codes agree 

 

Runner on 1B one out. Runner is running on the pitch. The batter hits a ground ball back towards the pitcher. The pitcher deflects the ball in the direction of the second baseman. As the runner is running directly to second base, he unintentionally bumps into the second baseman, who is attempting to field the deflected ball.

Ruling- Interference is called and the runner from first is declared out. Even though this is still a batted ball and the runner must avoid the fielder. 

 

AHH.. I see what you're saying. Im picturing F5 playing in.. with plenty room between F5 in on the grass and F6 ranging deep in the hole. You're picturing F5 just in front of F6....Maybe cutting in front of F6 to play a slow roller and missing it. So, depending on the fielder's proximity to each other, I can see where we need to protect just F5, and F6 would likely be guilty of obstruction, and the play stands. Now it's a HTBT.

[noumpere]

On 3/12/2018 at 7:22 PM, Richvee said:

With R2 on second moving on the pitch, B1 hits a grounder in the hole at short. F5 comes over to field the ball, but it passes through his legs. As F6 is about to make the play, R2 inadvertently brushes into him.When the play ends, R2 is on third and B1 is on first.

 

 

12 hours ago, Kevin_K said:

Why would F5 not be the protected fielder? Just because he did not make the play does not mean he couldn't.

If the umpire judges F5 to be the protected fielder because he is more likely to make the play, contact with F6 ought to be ignored for interference shouldn't it?

 

F5 *was* likely the protected fielder when the play started.

As soon as(?)  the ball went through F5's legs, F6 likely became the protected fielder.

[maven]

11 hours ago, Kevin_K said:

In the OP, R2 was moving on the pitch. That could likely place him somewhere around where the ball would be when F5 misplays it. By offering the protection to F6, does this put R2 in harm's way? If R2 had altered his path to avoid F5 making a play, should R2 then be penalized for a defensive miscue?

I get the concern. I disagree with framing this as "penalizing a runner for a defensive miscue": the defense has a right to field the batted ball. That's the basis for conferring protection (from what? from liability for OBS) in the first place. If the runner hinders the defense's efforts to field the ball, then we penalize him for INT, not a defensive miscue.

If you think that's too high a burden on the runner, consider the burden on F5 who misplays the ball and loses the protection: if R2 bumps into him after his protection is gone, it's OBS, not INT. How many times have we heard coach complain, "so what, he's just supposed to disappear?" Well, yes. Is that fair? Yes: same rule for both teams.

[CJK]

57 minutes ago, maven said:

If you think that's too high a burden on the runner, consider the burden on F5 who misplays the ball and loses the protection: if R2 bumps into him after his protection is gone, it's OBS, not INT.

Or the burden on F6 if his buddy gets a big enough piece of the ball: he was headed to do his job, but F5 made a great stab or knocked the ball down (either one), removing F6's possibility of being a protected fielder, and now instead of being in position to field the ball, he may be guilty of OBS for hindering R2.

There have to be rules for how player interact on the field, and there have to be penalties for violating the rules.  Sometimes that kind of feels bad, but they apply to both teams and everybody knows what they are ahead of time, which (as Maven noted) is what makes it fair.  Fair doesn't have to feel good.

[ricka56]

On 3/12/2018 at 7:22 PM, Richvee said:

I thought I had a good handle on this type play, now I'm wondering....

With R2 on second moving on the pitch, B1 hits a grounder in the hole at short. F5 comes over to field the ball, but it passes through his legs. As F6 is about to make the play, R2 inadvertently brushes into him.When the play ends, R2 is on third and B1 is on first.

a. the play stands

b. B1 is out

c. R2 is out

d. R2 must return to secon

answer C. regardless of the ball passing F5, even if he deflected it as long as  F6 has a play on the ball, R2 must avoid him. Interference is the call....all codes.  (Different story if the ball hits the runner )

 

I think 'A' is the answer...maybe with a OOO obstruction call on F5, in addition. The way I see this, when F6 is about to make the play, F5 has no protection and must not obstruct R2. The inadvertently brush might be obstruction, but you probably wouldn't protect R2 past 3B, which is where he ended up. 

[Richvee]

5 minutes ago, ricka56 said:

I think 'A' is the answer...maybe with a OOO obstruction call on F5, in addition. The way I see this, when F6 is about to make the play, F5 has no protection and must not obstruct R2. The inadvertently brush might be obstruction, but you probably wouldn't protect R2 past 3B, which is where he ended up. 

I think you have the runner/fielder contact wrong. Runner brushes F6 as he's fielding the ball, AFTER the ball has gone though F5's legs. No one contacts F5. He's in front of the runner and F6

[ricka56]

4 minutes ago, Richvee said:

I think you have the runner/fielder contact wrong. Runner brushes F6 as he's fielding the ball, AFTER the ball has gone though F5's legs. No one contacts F5. He's in front of the runner and F6

You're right, my mistake. If R2 ran all the way to the hole to brush F6, then he gets what he gets.

[noumpere]

8 hours ago, Richvee said:

I think you have the runner/fielder contact wrong. Runner brushes F6 as he's fielding the ball, AFTER the ball has gone though F5's legs. No one contacts F5. He's in front of the runner and F6

Those pronouns can be tricky.

[Tborze]

On March 12, 2018 at 8:22 PM, Richvee said:

I thought I had a good handle on this type play, now I'm wondering....

With R2 on second moving on the pitch, B1 hits a grounder in the hole at short. F5 comes over to field the ball, but it passes through his legs. As F6 is about to make the play, R2 inadvertently brushes into him.When the play ends, R2 is on third and B1 is on first.

a. the play stands

b. B1 is out

c. R2 is out

d. R2 must return to secon

answer C. regardless of the ball passing F5, even if he deflected it as long as  F6 has a play on the ball, R2 must avoid him. Interference is the call....all codes.  (Different story if the ball hits the runner )

 

I'm wondering?

FED 8-4-2g,1

Obstruction?  All runners advanced so the play would stand.  Even if deflected. 

 

[maven]

58 minutes ago, Tborze said:

I'm wondering?

FED 8-4-2g,1

Obstruction?  All runners advanced so the play would stand.  Even if deflected.

We need to call OBS whenever it happens. The key is to separate the infraction (which must be called) from the award (sometimes none).

Ordinarily, when we use the expression "the play stands," we're saying that there was no infraction, or that the infraction is ignored. That won't be the case with OBS. It would be more accurate in the case of OBS to say, "there is no further award," or the like.

[Richvee]

42 minutes ago, maven said:

We need to call OBS whenever it happens. The key is to separate the infraction (which must be called) from the award (sometimes none).

Ordinarily, when we use the expression "the play stands," we're saying that there was no infraction, or that the infraction is ignored. That won't be the case with OBS. It would be more accurate in the case of OBS to say, "there is no further award," or the like.

Would you agree we need to see the proximity of the two fielders to judge INT on R2, or, as @Kevin_K and @Tborze suggest, OBS on F6? 

Granted, OBS is not an answer in the OP, but I can envision a case for OBS where F5 is cutting the ball off in front of F6, misses it while F6 is behind him, and R2 runs into F6. OBS with F5 having been the protected fielder. Similar to a ground ball up the 1B line where F1 and F3 both are fielding the ball and BR contacts one. 

I picture this OP where there's ample room between F5 missing the ball and F6 fielding it, in which case I would have INT.