Protected Fielder?

[Guest Guest]

Runners on 1st and 2nd, 0 out. Fairly hard ground ball up the middle slightly to the SS side of the second base bag. In my judgement the ball is ticketed for CF, but the SS is the closest infielder to the ball. As the SS is moving towards the ball, there is a collision between him and the baserunner resulting in both of them being knocked to the ground. 

Since I judged no infielder had a play on the ball, is the CF the protected fielder here? Or should this be interference on the baserunner because the SS is the closest infielder to the ball?

 

 

[UMP45]

If you judged the SS had no play on the ball you would have obstruction on the SS.

[noumpere]

31 minutes ago, UMP45 said:

If you judged the SS had no play on the ball you would have obstruction on the SS.

Agreed.  While you might need to protect a FIELDER you don't need to protect an INfielder.

[beerguy55]

Sounds like OBS on F6.

[maven]

I'd err on the side of INT here. I recognize that there are clear-cut cases of "no chance of a play," for instance if the ball is already even with or past F6 when R2 plows into him.

But usually that collision happens immediately, with the ball still in the infield. The protected fielder's protection is from OBS, so that even accidental contact by the runner is INT. And it's there for a reason, namely to prevent "accidental on purpose" contact with fielders.

So yes, if it's clear to absolutely everyone in the park that there was no play, then call the OBS on the non-protected F6. But with any tiny shred of a doubt about that, call the INT.

[ArchAngel72]

LL 

 

Based on what I am reading I still would have gone with interference, runner should at all cost avoid a fielder attempting to make a play on a ball. If the runner knew it was going thru it would behoove him to let the SS take a stab at it anyway and get outta his way and advance to the base without a collision. 

 

[wolfe_man]

On 8/16/2020 at 9:27 AM, maven said:

I'd err on the side of INT here. I recognize that there are clear-cut cases of "no chance of a play," for instance if the ball is already even with or past F6 when R2 plows into him.

But usually that collision happens immediately, with the ball still in the infield. The protected fielder's protection is from OBS, so that even accidental contact by the runner is INT. And it's there for a reason, namely to prevent "accidental on purpose" contact with fielders.

So yes, if it's clear to absolutely everyone in the park that there was no play, then call the OBS on the non-protected F6. But with any tiny shred of a doubt about that, call the INT.

I agree with @maven.  There's a lot of grey area in a 'my judgment' statement.  In my thinking, you need to protect the fielder who has a chance (define chance as anything close to a play) to make a play on the ball from the runner.  This rule is in place to avoid needless injury or a runner from simply 'trucking' a fielder who gets near them. 

We have to be careful as umpires not to put our idea of the players ability ahead of the possibility of them making a play.  Maybe F6 has kicked every ball hit to them all game, but we must allow them the opportunity to make a spectacular play without being interfered with if we are enforcing this rule correctly. 

If you call OBS, it must be blatant - or else you're going to get chewed on and rightfully so.  I'd lean towards runner interference myself.

[LRZ]

The OP said he judged no infielder had a play on the ball. Obstruction. For me, the operative principle is "if it's clear to the umpire that there is no play...." Once the umpire determines that the fielder is not protected, the ensuing collision--and that's pretty blatant, don't you think?--is obstruction, not interference.

Change the facts, and you possibly change the ruling. No video? I'm not second-guessing our guest.

But this is hypothetical. The answers to the OP's questions are: (1) the CF could be protected, but he was not interfered with, and (2) if, in the umpire's judgment, he has no play on the ball, the SS is not protected just based on proximity.

[maven]

I second-guessed no one. I offered guidance regarding how to judge whether a play is possible, and where the benefit of the doubt ought to lie.

The OP's description of the play sounds like garden-variety INT to me, but I wasn't there and haven't seen film. Few amateur hitters can hit the ball hard enough over 2B that a play by F6 is literally impossible. And because F6 never got near the ball, it's hard to judge this issue. 

Hence the need for guidance of the sort I offered.

[LRZ]

How can it be garden-variety interference if the umpire judged the SS had no play on the ball? You started your initial reply by saying, "I'd err on the side of INT here"--that sounds like second-guessing, to me. Likewise for several other posters. You often tell guests that, without video, it's difficult to opine. The OP here said "in his judgment," so let's take his word for it: the SS had no play and was thus not protected when he and the runner collided. So the ruling is?

Maybe it's the "benefit of the doubt" thing that we disagree on. I'm not good enough to adjudicate plays that way. I see something, and it's usually a binary thing for me--either this or that--with no question of "doubt" to tip the proverbial scales one way or the other.

[beerguy55]

2 hours ago, wolfe_man said:

This rule is in place to avoid needless injury or a runner from simply 'trucking' a fielder who gets near them. 

The rule does nothing to avoid injury in most cases, and that's not why it's there...99% of the times the runner and fielder collide with no intent, and no time to react...or simply a lack of attention or focus...the rule does not, and will not ever, prevent those collisions - and that's what seems to be described in the OP. 

Only when the runner can clearly see the fielder making the play in front of him does the rule help to avoid injury, assuming the runner knows his obligation.

The rule is simply a recognition that SOMEONE has a right here...either the fielder has the right to the ball, or the runner has the right to the base...and attempts to make whole the impeded party.  The fielder who has no play at the ball could just as easily truck the runner as vice versa.

 

2 hours ago, wolfe_man said:

If you call OBS, it must be blatant - or else you're going to get chewed on and rightfully so.  I'd lean towards runner interference myself.

Not true...it doesn't need to be blatant any more than INT does, because OBS doesn't require intent any more than INT does.   It's one or the other, and you have a lot of leeway in your judgment - but you better be able to defend it. If the ball is already past F6 at time of collision you'd get chewed out for calling INT, and rightly so.   You also don't want to "reward" F6 for taking a weird route to the ball that "accidentally" brings him into R2's path.

@maven's guidance is indeed spot on, and the reality is we're all imagining a slightly different vision of the play (I'm envisioning a screamer that is by F1 before he realizes it, and F6 is simply instinctively stepping in the direction of the ball, but the ball is already by him and second base as R2 runs into F6) - your position of leaning towards INT and needing a higher threshold for OBS isn't terrible, but don't get married to it...it has its pitfalls.  There are a LOT of ways this is OBS.

[wolfe_man]

47 minutes ago, beerguy55 said:

The rule does nothing to avoid injury in most cases, and that's not why it's there...99% of the times the runner and fielder collide with no intent, and no time to react...or simply a lack of attention or focus...the rule does not, and will not ever, prevent those collisions - and that's what seems to be described in the OP. 

Only when the runner can clearly see the fielder making the play in front of him does the rule help to avoid injury, assuming the runner knows his obligation.

The rule is simply a recognition that SOMEONE has a right here...either the fielder has the right to the ball, or the runner has the right to the base...and attempts to make whole the impeded party.  The fielder who has no play at the ball could just as easily truck the runner as vice versa.

 

Not true...it doesn't need to be blatant any more than INT does, because OBS doesn't require intent any more than INT does.   It's one or the other, and you have a lot of leeway in your judgment - but you better be able to defend it. If the ball is already past F6 at time of collision you'd get chewed out for calling INT, and rightly so.   You also don't want to "reward" F6 for taking a weird route to the ball that "accidentally" brings him into R2's path.

@maven's guidance is indeed spot on, and the reality is we're all imagining a slightly different vision of the play (I'm envisioning a screamer that is by F1 before he realizes it, and F6 is simply instinctively stepping in the direction of the ball, but the ball is already by him and second base as R2 runs into F6) - your position of leaning towards INT and needing a higher threshold for OBS isn't terrible, but don't get married to it...it has its pitfalls.  There are a LOT of ways this is OBS.

I stand corrected. No doubt all you say is true and fact without any opinion.

[beerguy55]

7 hours ago, wolfe_man said:

I stand corrected. No doubt all you say is true and fact without any opinion.

Someone finally gets it

[BretMan]

One that I had...

Runner on second base. Batter hits a line drive right up the middle, over the pitcher’s head. R2 takes a few steps toward third. F6 takes a few steps toward second. BOOM! They collide! 

Freeze frame it right there. At the instant the two collided, the ball was about ten feet off the ground, directly over second base, and exiting the infield.

i called obstruction. The offensive coach argued that it should have been interference. I noted where the ball was and told him that, in my judgment, F6 could not have fielded the ball. He argued, “But my shortstop is really good!”. Sorry...it wasn’t humanly possible for any shortstop to get that ball...unless they could fly! 

[BLWizzRanger]

Hey guys, sorry for bringing up a post 2 months old but i wanted to hear the thought process of an umpire in a similar situation and thought the existing content would be beneficial to understanding this.

My sons 12yo travel team had a pickoff play to second with a few moving parts. It started with the F6 circling around R2 clockwise trying to set up the runner by blocking his vision as he crosses in front of R2. He would circle once per pitch. The F1 wouldnt be turning to look at 2nd but keeps his focus on F2. When the F2 thinks they have him, he drops his glove when R2s vision is blocked and F1 turns to second base to throw to F4 (who sprints to 2B on the dropped glove).

This worked pretty well when you had a 5'9" F6 and a 5'1" R2, but i digress...

I always thought this was stupid as the counter move would be for the R2 to run into F6 as he crosses the 2B-3B basepath (@ 9PM) so that obstruction could be called.

The BU might not see the collision but he should have seen the setup and know what is going on. The PU probably will see the collision (it should be in his line of sight as he looks at the pitcher).

Its risky with two possible outcomes. Obstruction on F6, or no call and possibly the runner being out. Well, maybe a balk but lets take that out of the equation.

With this scant information, what are your thoughts?

Thanks.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930AZ using Tapatalk

[noumpere]

If R2 initiates the contact (that is, just causes the contact for the sake of "getting a call" and not because R2 is trying to advance / return), it's not going to be OBS.

[BLWizzRanger]

If R2 initiates the contact (that is, just causes the contact for the sake of "getting a call" and not because R2 is trying to advance / return), it's not going to be OBS.

Understood. The part would be that the R2 is trying to steal third at that exact timing.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930AZ using Tapatalk

[BLWizzRanger]

Understood. The part would be that the R2 is trying to steal third at that exact timing.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930AZ using Tapatalk

Ultematly its umpire judgement if it was an actual attempt or not, right?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930AZ using Tapatalk

[maven]

17 minutes ago, BLWizzRanger said:

Ultematly its umpire judgement if it was an actual attempt or not, right?

No, the intent of the runner determines whether he's attempting to draw a call. The umpire has to judge that intent, mostly based on the runner's behavior, such as deviating into a fielder who's not in his way.

In any case, if the question is, "what's the best tactic for coaches to teach their players in order to get a free base or out from the umpires," I don't see an umpire forum as the best place to ask.

[noumpere]

7 minutes ago, maven said:

No, the intent of the runner determines whether he's attempting to draw a call. The umpire has to judge that intent, mostly based on the runner's behavior, such as deviating into a fielder who's not in his way.

 

And, mostly, that technique is not going to work at any level where it might be tried -- R2 is just not that good of an actor nor can he time his advance correctly.

[BLWizzRanger]

No, the intent of the runner determines whether he's attempting to draw a call. The umpire has to judge that intent, mostly based on the runner's behavior, such as deviating into a fielder who's not in his way.
In any case, if the question is, "what's the best tactic for coaches to teach their players in order to get a free base or out from the umpires," I don't see an umpire forum as the best place to ask.

No, i am looking at it from an umpires perspective. The umpire doesnt know how the players are coached and is only observing game play.

And, the runner wouldnt be deviating, per se. He is supposed to just time the play as to when the F6 crosses his path - Acting notwithstanding.

But i think you answered or confirmed what i was thinking. It comes down to the umpires judgement on whether it is nothing or obstruction. Thanks. Is there anything else it could be?

Btw, the pickoff was successful one or two times. My thought of what the runner should do was never coached to the team.







Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930AZ using Tapatalk

[Senor Azul]

I originally posted the following in July 2019--

2019 NCAA rule 8-3f. Visual obstruction by a defensive player may be called if a fielder interferes intentionally with a base runner’s opportunity to see the ball on a defensive play.

PENALTY for f.—The umpire shall point and call “That’s obstruction.” The umpire shall let the play continue until all play has ceased, call time and award any bases that are justified in Rule 2. If a runner(s) advances beyond what the umpire would have granted and is put out, the runner(s) is out. The offender’s team shall be warned, and a second offense by that team shall result in the ejection of the offending player because of an unsportsmanlike act.

Here’s an official interpretation for the NCAA found in the 2016 BRD (section 376, p. 252):

Official Interpretation:  Fetchiet:  The first baseman stations himself between the runner and the pitcher, moving back and forth to obstruct the runner’s view:  Legal, unless the pitcher makes a play at the moment of obstruction. PENALTY:  The ball is dead, R1 receives second, and the umpire issues a team warning. (Website, 3/12/01)

From the 2018 Minor League Baseball Umpire Manual (section 6.17, p. 98):

Play 12:  With a runner on first base, the first baseman—rather than holding the runner in the traditional manner—jockeys back and forth in front of the runner, several feet to the second base side of the bag. In the umpire’s judgment the first baseman is doing this intentionally to block the runner’s view of the pitcher.

Ruling 12:  While Official Baseball Rule 5.02(c) allows a fielder to position himself anywhere in fair territory, if the umpire deems the fielder’s actions are a deliberate effort to block the runner’s view of the pitcher, it is illegal and clearly not within the spirit of the rules. The first baseman should be warned to stop, and if he persists, he is subject to ejection.

[noumpere]

While OBS is a possible ruling, it's not likely in the usual "circle play" where F6 is just moving from (near) second back to (near) his normal position and happens to pass in front of R2 while doing so, even if F1 times his pickoff move to begin at exactly the time F6 is in front of R2.

If F6 stops in front of R2, and / or moves back and forth to sty in front of R2 -- sure, get the OBS.  But, I didn't read that as part of the current play being discussed.