Jump to content
  • 0

Runner interference


Guest John Basile

Question

Guest John Basile

Man on second

ground ball between short stop and 3rd

short stop moves toward ball but 3rd baseman cuts in front of shortstop and cleanly field ball and throws the batter runner out at first

runner on 2nd advances to 3rd but makes contact with shortstop who never fielded the ball

is the runner out by contacting the short stop?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Answers 6
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters For This Question

Top Posters For This Question

6 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0
22 minutes ago, Guest John Basile said:

Man on second

ground ball between short stop and 3rd

short stop moves toward ball but 3rd baseman cuts in front of shortstop and cleanly field ball and throws the batter runner out at first

runner on 2nd advances to 3rd but makes contact with shortstop who never fielded the ball

is the runner out by contacting the short stop?

Quite the opposite...only one fielder is protected from interference by the runner, and it isn’t the SS here since F5 fielded the ball (he is protected).

What you describe is actually type 2 obstruction on the shortstop.  Since the rubber acquired third, you simply acknowledge the obstruction, but it’s definitely not interference

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Not necessarily obstruction. It is the umpire’s judgment as to which fielder is protected. The fact that F5 ultimately fielded the ball doesn’t automatically mean he was the protected fielder - it could have been F6. With the scenario given it’s hard to say for certain but interference is a possibility (which would mean runner from second out and batter to first). 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

From the 2017 Jaksa/Roder manual (pp. 104-106):

If, at any given time, two or more fielders are expecting to field a batted ball, the one who is in a better position to field it (usually the one nearer the ball) is given priority over the other fielders by the umpire. [6.01(a) (10)] Only one fielder can have priority at a given time, but priority can be immediately taken from one fielder and given to another.

R2. The third baseman and shortstop converge on a ground ball. Either fielder can field it, but the third baseman is nearer the ball when R2 contacts the shortstop:  the protected fielder is the third baseman; hence, there is not interference. Moreover, the shortstop has obstructed R2.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
6 hours ago, Sut'n Blue said:

Not necessarily obstruction. It is the umpire’s judgment as to which fielder is protected. The fact that F5 ultimately fielded the ball doesn’t automatically mean he was the protected fielder - it could have been F6. With the scenario given it’s hard to say for certain but interference is a possibility (which would mean runner from second out and batter to first). 

If you protect the SS when F5 just fielded the ball, you’re gonna have a whole set of problems...that means you decided wayyy too quick which fielder to protect.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
7 hours ago, Sut'n Blue said:

Not necessarily obstruction. It is the umpire’s judgment as to which fielder is protected. The fact that F5 ultimately fielded the ball doesn’t automatically mean he was the protected fielder - it could have been F6. With the scenario given it’s hard to say for certain but interference is a possibility (which would mean runner from second out and batter to first). 

That's probably only true if F5 fielded the ball well after F6 was contacted and only because F6 was contacted.  That seems very unlikely (to me)  in the OP.

 

It is possible to originally have F6 be the "protected fielder" and later change that protection  to F5.  But, this type of play happens fast; F5 is taught to get any ball he can -- and the fact that he got it in the OP means he *probably* should have been protected.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

And we can sort out protection after the fact. If we're not sure, leave the ball live and let playing action end. Then determine who was protected: if the runner contacted the protected fielder, make the ball retroactively dead, rule INT, and put runners back. If the runner contacted another fielder, rule OBS and place runners accordingly.

Protection, like OBS, should be based on all evidence of what happens during play. In the OP, I'd likely have OBS without an award (depending on what happened to the ball—on an overthrow at 1B, I might award HP).

This kind of play is going to upset a coach, because they both think their player was hindered by the contact—one wants OBS, one wants INT. I'm pretty sure the DC never heard of a "protected fielder," and he's positive that a runner who collides with a fielder on a batted ball is OUT. Game management is an art.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Answer this question...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.






×
×
  • Create New...