Runner interference

[Guest James]

Slow pitch softball

bases are loaded and batter hits ball to third baseman.  Runners are moving on contact.  Third baseman boots ball and it goes into the outfield.  Runner moving from second to third is on a path to take him behind third baseman’.  Third baseman turns and heads towards outfield to get ball.  Third baseman knocks runner down and umpire calls interference on runner.  Third baseman had opportunity to cleanly field hit ball and committed error.  Ball was in outfield and there was no chance for him to make play at any base.  How can there be runner interference when third baseman has no play to make?

[noumpere]

Unless the slowpitch softball rule on this is different from the baseball rule, this should have been OBS on the fielder

[ArchAngel72]

Ump kicked the call. Fielder gets one "play" to field the ball if they boot it such as told he’s lost his protection. What noumpere said OBS on fielder fo sho

[Jimurray]

13 hours ago, ArchAngel72 said:

Ump kicked the call. Fielder gets one chance to field the ball if they boot it such as told he’s lost his protection. What noumpere said OBS on fielder fo sho

That ump kicked the call. You kicked the rule. Would you like to rephrase your post for better clarification. 

[ArchAngel72]

On 9/25/2020 at 11:24 PM, Jimurray said:

That ump kicked the call. You kicked the rule. Would you like to rephrase your post for better clarification. 

The fielder gets an initial 1st "PLAY" on the ball after that they have lost protection have they not?

 

[noumpere]

24 minutes ago, ArchAngel72 said:

The fielder gets an initial 1st "PLAY" on the ball after that they have lost protection have they not?

 

Are you talking about the OP or is this a general question?  If it's the latter, it's not complete; a fielder can maintain protection even after "booting" the ball and can "regain" protection, with teh specifics varying by rules code, I think.

[ArchAngel72]

2 hours ago, noumpere said:

Are you talking about the OP or is this a general question?  If it's the latter, it's not complete; a fielder can maintain protection even after "booting" the ball and can "regain" protection, with teh specifics varying by rules code, I think.

my understanding is, the player keeps protection if the ball is within reach of the initial play ie the play is still continuing. But if like the OP has they pulled a Buckner and it scoots on by them and into the outfield, the protection is gone and then its OBS on them.

[beerguy55]

56 minutes ago, ArchAngel72 said:

my understanding is, the player keeps protection if the ball is within reach of the initial play ie the play is still continuing. But if like the OP has they pulled a Buckner and it scoots on by them and into the outfield, the protection is gone and then its OBS on them.

Yes, and, if the infielder kicks the ball, and then chases it down, they can reestablish protection when they get within reach of it.   Your original statement was the "fielder gets one chance" - that is incorrect.

[ArchAngel72]

1 hour ago, beerguy55 said:

Yes, and, if the infielder kicks the ball, and then chases it down, they can reestablish protection when they get within reach of it.   Your original statement was the "fielder gets one chance" - that is incorrect.

If the fielder is making a 2nd attempt on a ball that they booted do you think the same runner is going to be there to possibly interfere with them?

 

Furthermore  if they booted the ball and then go chasing after it. during that chase they have LOST their protection if they interfere with the runner at that point its OBS, as in the OP

 

 

[Jimurray]

11 minutes ago, ArchAngel72 said:

If the fielder is making a 2nd attempt on a ball that they booted do you think the same runner is going to be there to possibly interfere with them?

 

Furthermore  if they booted the ball and then go chasing after it. during that chase they have LOST their protection if they interfere with the runner at that point its OBS, as in the OP

 

 

Just accept that your “one chance” would not always be correct depending on the circumstances of a missplayed ball and fielder runner contact. 

[ArchAngel72]

53 minutes ago, Jimurray said:

Just accept that your “one chance” would not always be correct depending on the circumstances of a missplayed ball and fielder runner contact. 

well let me ask this what consists of "one chance" to you is probably different to me and others.   The player does not get to kick the ball around and then see its 12 feet the other side of the on coming runner and plow thru the runner on their way to it.  Yeah if they bobble it, it handcuffs them ,they knock it down and then they make a toss but gets clipped, well then yeah its the runners fault not theirs.  their "chance" is encompassing of his "play" on that ball hit to them.  If they boot it so badly, its not in the process of making that play, well then they need to make sure they clear the runner and not the other way around. 

[beerguy55]

1 hour ago, ArchAngel72 said:

If the fielder is making a 2nd attempt on a ball that they booted do you think the same runner is going to be there to possibly interfere with them?

 

Furthermore  if they booted the ball and then go chasing after it. during that chase they have LOST their protection if they interfere with the runner at that point its OBS, as in the OP

 

 

Who said anything about the "same" runner...or whether any runner was present when they first tried to field the ball...it's irrelevant.   INT can apply to any runner, and more than one runner - if the fielder is protected they are protected from all runners.  

Ground ball hit to a fielder, he is protected...fielder deflects the ball and it gets away from him, he loses protection (and can commit OBS now)...fielder chases ball and as he reaches the ball to play it he is now protected again (it's still considered a batted ball) - if any runner collides with him at that point it's likely INT, not OBS.   

As stated previously, your ruling is correct in this scenario...your general statement about the fielder getting "one chance" is incorrect.   There are scenarios where the fielder can re-acquire that protection.

[noumpere]

5 minutes ago, ArchAngel72 said:

well let me ask this what consists of "one chance" to you is probably different to me and others.   The player does not get to kick the ball around and then see its 12 feet the other side of the on coming runner and plow thru the runner on their way to it.  Yeah if they bobble it, it handcuffs them ,they knock it down and then they make a toss but gets clipped, well then yeah its the runners fault not theirs.  their "chance" is encompassing of his "play" on that ball hit to them.  If they boot it so badly, its not in the process of making that play, well then they need to make sure they clear the runner and not the other way around. 

There's some much-discussed-at-the-time video where F1 (iirc) boots the ball and it rolls toward the 1b line.  F1 chases after the ball.  As he reaches it, F1 and BR collide.  That's an example of what we are talking about.  I agree it's NOT likely something that happened in the OP (but the threads often evolve from specifics to generalities to help others, especially newbies, understand the nuances).

[ArchAngel72]

2 minutes ago, beerguy55 said:

Who said anything about the "same" runner...or whether any runner was present when they first tried to field the ball...it's irrelevant.   INT can apply to any runner, and more than one runner - if the fielder is protected they are protected from all runners.  

Ground ball hit to a fielder, he is protected...fielder deflects the ball and it gets away from him, he loses protection (and can commit OBS now)...fielder chases ball and as he reaches the ball to play it he is now protected again (it's still considered a batted ball) - if any runner collides with him at that point it's likely INT, not OBS.   

As stated previously, your ruling is correct in this scenario...your general statement about the fielder getting "one chance" is incorrect.   There are scenarios where the fielder can re-acquire that protection.

 

My statement on one chance is for through out the moment of that "play"   there is not going to be unless we are talking some confused 8U's a runner having a chance to be causing INT more than one time period.   Im looking at it like an exchange, each exchange causes its own opportunity, and therefore "chance" 

[ArchAngel72]

1 minute ago, noumpere said:

There's some much-discussed-at-the-time video where F1 (iirc) boots the ball and it rolls toward the 1b line.  F1 chases after the ball.  As he reaches it, F1 and BR collide.  That's an example of what we are talking about.  I agree it's NOT likely something that happened in the OP (but the threads often evolve from specifics to generalities to help others, especially newbies, understand the nuances).

2nd opportunity, another chance.

[Replacematt]

1 hour ago, ArchAngel72 said:

If the fielder is making a 2nd attempt on a ball that they booted do you think the same runner is going to be there to possibly interfere with them?

 

Furthermore  if they booted the ball and then go chasing after it. during that chase they have LOST their protection if they interfere with the runner at that point its OBS, as in the OP

 

 

Does someone want to find that video of the ball deflecting off the pitcher to the foul line, where BR interferes with him?

Oops...sorry, @noumpere.

[Replacematt]

27 minutes ago, ArchAngel72 said:

2nd opportunity, another chance.

I'm sorry, I misspoke. Instead of arguing, I should have initially clarified what I meant instead of waiting three posts to do so.

FIFY.

[ousafe]

Re: "varies by code," on action after the muff, I've got:

NFHS 8-4-2 g. 1. "... If a fielder drops a batted ball and contact with a runner occurs during a subsequent attempt to field the ball, the fielder has the greater responsibility to avoid contact."

OBR - I can't find any such caveat. Are there any approved rulings that relate directly to re-establishing protection? (I don't have the umpire manuals or Wendelstedt.)

[maven]

58 minutes ago, ousafe said:

Re: "varies by code," on action after the muff, I've got:

NFHS 8-4-2 g. 1. "... If a fielder drops a batted ball and contact with a runner occurs during a subsequent attempt to field the ball, the fielder has the greater responsibility to avoid contact."

OBR - I can't find any such caveat. Are there any approved rulings that relate directly to re-establishing protection? (I don't have the umpire manuals or Wendelstedt.)

I enforce this the same in both codes. If the fielder has to move more than a step to get to the misplayed ball, then his protection lapses and he's liable for INT.

I interpret 'subsequent attempt to field the ball' in FED as requiring more than a step.

[Jimurray]

30 minutes ago, maven said:

I enforce this the same in both codes. If the fielder has to move more than a step to get to the misplayed ball, then his protection lapses and he's liable for INT.

I interpret 'subsequent attempt to field the ball' in FED as requiring more than a step.

The NCAA wording implies that a fielder can reestablish protection although you might argue that the deflection is only by another player. But the "chasing" verbiage implies chasing after his own deflected ball also. I thought OBR was the same as NCAA.

Note 3: If a fielder has a chance to field a batted ball, but misplays it and while attempting to recover it, the ball is in the fielder’s immediate reach and the fielder is contacted by the base runner attempting to reach a base, interference shall be called. Note 4: If a fielder has a chance to field a batted ball, but misplays it and must chase after the ball, the fielder must avoid the runner. If contact occurs, obstruction shall be called. Note 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.

[noumpere]

41 minutes ago, Jimurray said:

The NCAA wording implies that a fielder can reestablish protection although you might argue that the deflection is only by another player. But the "chasing" verbiage implies chasing after his own deflected ball also. I thought OBR was the same as NCAA.

Note 3: If a fielder has a chance to field a batted ball, but misplays it and while attempting to recover it, the ball is in the fielder’s immediate reach and the fielder is contacted by the base runner attempting to reach a base, interference shall be called. Note 4: If a fielder has a chance to field a batted ball, but misplays it and must chase after the ball, the fielder must avoid the runner. If contact occurs, obstruction shall be called. Note 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.

Note 5 was added in 2008 -- the play was the subject of some discussion on some board like this and at the NCAA conference, iirc, and then the note was added

[Senor Azul]

Mr. ousafe, you’re right that the OBR does not spell out what happens after the fielder misses his initial attempt to field the ball. The good news is there are approved rulings and you don’t have to rely on internet umpires or high school rule books to make a proper call.

From the 2018 Minor League Baseball Umpire Manual (section 6.17, p. 96):

Play 4:  With bases loaded, batter hits a sharp ground ball which deflects off of the shortstop and starts to roll away from him. As the shortstop starts to go after the ball, runner from second collides with him.

Ruling 4:  After the ball deflects off the shortstop, if the ball is within the fielder’s immediate reach, the runner must avoid the fielder, and if contact occurs under those circumstances, interference shall be called and the runner declared out. However, if the ball is not within reach of the fielder after it deflects off him (i.e., the fielder must chase after the ball), the fielder must then avoid the runner, and if contact occurs under those circumstances, obstruction shall be called under OBR 6.01(h)(2).

From the 2016 BRD (section 345, p. 228):

Official Interpretation:  Wendelstedt:  If the ball is more than a step and a reach from the fielder, he is no longer considered in the act of fielding the ball (in the immediate vicinity).

[Jimurray]

1 hour ago, Senor Azul said:

Mr. ousafe, you’re right that the OBR does not spell out what happens after the fielder misses his initial attempt to field the ball. The good news is there are approved rulings and you don’t have to rely on internet umpires or high school rule books to make a proper call.

From the 2018 Minor League Baseball Umpire Manual (section 6.17, p. 96):

Play 4:  With bases loaded, batter hits a sharp ground ball which deflects off of the shortstop and starts to roll away from him. As the shortstop starts to go after the ball, runner from second collides with him.

Ruling 4:  After the ball deflects off the shortstop, if the ball is within the fielder’s immediate reach, the runner must avoid the fielder, and if contact occurs under those circumstances, interference shall be called and the runner declared out. However, if the ball is not within reach of the fielder after it deflects off him (i.e., the fielder must chase after the ball), the fielder must then avoid the runner, and if contact occurs under those circumstances, obstruction shall be called under OBR 6.01(h)(2).

From the 2016 BRD (section 345, p. 228):

Official Interpretation:  Wendelstedt:  If the ball is more than a step and a reach from the fielder, he is no longer considered in the act of fielding the ball (in the immediate vicinity).

I/we are still not sure what the call is if the fielder is now again within the immediate vicinity of the ball and is reaching for it. 

[Jimurray]

1 minute ago, Jimurray said:

I/we are still not sure what the call is if the fielder is now again within the immediate vicinity of the ball and is reaching for it. 

We all agree a fielder chasing a ball not within his immediate reach would be guilty of obstruction. But parse #4? We can again have a fielder within immediate reach. We need a real world ruling or clarification to clarify “missplay” and “deflected” . 

 

 

[Senor Azul]

The 2013 Wendelstedt Rules and Interpretations Manual states (in footnote 338, p. 146):

…A batted ball being deflected does not prohibit other fielders from attempting to field the ball, and if they are in the act of fielding it, they are still protected from interference by a runner.

Even a fielder who deflects a batted ball, and must chase after it in order to retrieve it, may re-establish himself as in the act of fielding the ball as long as he is within a step and reach from the ball, no longer chasing after it, and the umpire adjudges he is making a legitimate and immediate play.

[maven]

8 hours ago, Jimurray said:

We need a real world ruling or clarification to clarify “misplay” and “deflected” . 

Disagree. We need to understand the aims of the relevant rules.

The basic principle is: the runner has the right of way, and a fielder who hinders a runner's legitimate advance/return to a base is liable for OBS.

The exception is: a fielder is protected from that liability when in the act of fielding a batted ball (through the throw or start of a play). In that case, a runner hindering a protected fielder is liable for INT.

The protection lapses when a fielder boots a ball, but only if he has to move for it. Why? Because the runner has to recognize a fielder in the act of fielding a batted ball and divert his path accordingly. When the fielder has to move to get a misplayed ball, the protection, the exception, and the runner's burden are lifted, and we're back to the basic principle. It's unreasonable to require runners to avoid fielders who have to change direction suddenly due to their own errors.

So we don't need a precise-ification of 'misplay' or 'deflection', we need to understand the rules and apply them properly to both teams. The fact is that any further definitions, case plays, examples, videos, etc. etc. would still leave questions of interpretation and application. Good judgment and an understanding of the game—which, after all, are what Wendelstedt himself uses when he issues his rulings—are the resources that umpires need to apply the rules in borderline cases.

(Note that I left 'fairness' off this list: fairness is the result of applying the rules properly to both teams and thus cannot be a desideratum in interpreting 'proper application'. Authorities make choices about what makes the game better; fairness requires calling the game that way for both teams.)