Obstruction? F1-F2-BR converge on lil' pop-up in front of the plate

[Velho]

 

 

Assuming you declare F1 as the protected fielder, could you get obstruction on the catcher? 

[Senor Azul]

From the 2017 Jaksa/Roder manual (p. 104);

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. (6.01a10) Only one fielder can have priority at a given time, but priority can be immediately taken from one fielder and given to another.

A fielder cannot be protected if he is chasing a batted ball that has been deflected or missed. If, however, he is trying to field a ball that has been deflected by another fielder, he can be protected as long as he is not chasing after the ball.

[umpstu]

1 hour ago, Velho said:

 

 

Assuming you declare F1 as the protected fielder, could you get obstruction on the catcher? 

Looks to be an infield fly situation, so batter would be out.  Why nobody says infield fly, batter's out puzzles me. To me it looks as if the catcher becomes the protected fielder since he's fielding it after it was dropped by the pitcher.

[SH0102]

Catcher can not become protected.  The only time it can transfer to another player is when deflected , not dropped/bobbled/fumbled.  Once P made an error and another fielder gets it, protection doesn’t transfer.

With that, it would be OBS on catcher, BUT, is there any credence given to the fact that batter made no attempt to run until about 5 seconds after he hit it? This should have been a non issue.

side note; I realize it looks like it was an IFF situation but I’m asking as if it wasnt

[SH0102]

And if batter is out for IFF, you have retired runners interference?

[maven]

20 minutes ago, SH0102 said:

The only time it can transfer to another player is when deflected , not dropped/bobbled/fumbled.

I've never heard this before. What is the source of it? I've transferred protection due to wind.

Absent IFF, I'd want to transfer protection in this play.

20 minutes ago, SH0102 said:

BUT, is there any credence given to the fact that batter made no attempt to run until about 5 seconds after he hit it? This should have been a non issue.

No rule dictates the runner's path. Provided he's not interfering or being played on, he can get to 1B how he pleases. Not running becomes an issue when it's a question of INT.

17 minutes ago, SH0102 said:

And if batter is out for IFF, you have retired runners interference?

He's liable for it, but I don't see any hindrance in the video. F2 misplays the ball initially, but makes his play on R2 advancing. I'd want INT to be bigger than that before calling it.

[SH0102]

38 minutes ago, maven said:

I've never heard this before. What is the source of it? I've transferred protection due to wind.

Absent IFF, I'd want to transfer protection in this play.

No rule dictates the runner's path. Provided he's not interfering or being played on, he can get to 1B how he pleases. Not running becomes an issue when it's a question of INT.

He's liable for it, but I don't see any hindrance in the video. F2 misplays the ball initially, but makes his play on R2 advancing. I'd want INT to be bigger than that before calling it.

I didnt mean an umpire can’t initially believe one fielder should be protected and then change their decision to another fielder (as you said, wind carries it to another fielder).

But once the initial fielder that did attempt to field it fumbles the ball, only HE can be protected within a step and reach.

A deflected ball (such as line drive off the shin or tip of glove) to another fielder gives that fielder protection, not dropping the ball and it rolling to another fielder

And since this thread was about whether we have OBS/INT, and you said absent IFF you would have INT here due to protection changing, I think the question about not running “only applies if INT is in question”, makes it a relevant question to ask

[maven]

30 minutes ago, SH0102 said:

And since this thread was about whether we have OBS/INT, and you said absent IFF you would have INT here due to protection changing, I think the question about not running “only applies if INT is in question”, makes it a relevant question to ask

I did not say that. I said I'd want the protection to shift.

I said I did NOT see INT here because there was no hindrance (or not enough). It doesn't become enough merely because the batter got confused, nor because he's out on the IFF (if he was).

'Protection' does not heighten the risk of INT. It relieves a fielder of liability for OBS. Getting this issue right for this video is essential for answering the OP's question.

[SH0102]

7 minutes ago, maven said:

I did not say that. I said I'd want the protection to shift.

I said I did NOT see INT here because there was no hindrance (or not enough). It doesn't become enough merely because the batter got confused, nor because he's out on the IFF (if he was).

'Protection' does not heighten the risk of INT. It relieves a fielder of liability for OBS. Getting this issue right for this video is essential for answering the OP's question.

Then I mis-interpreted what you wrote, I apologize.  I read it as you shift protection thus you would have INT since catcher is now protected 

[SH0102]

Anyone else notice that the initial OBS actually occurred on pitcher? I didn’t see that in first two views but watch batter, he makes move to first and has to shift bc of the P, which is what takes him into the path he took into the catcher.  The P actually obstructed his initial attempt to advance to first (and no he isn’t protected anymore)

[SH0102]

Also, re-watching the play, the batter actually impeded the catcher from getting out and possibly making a play.  If you had judged that F2 would have best play on the ball (since rarely does a P field pop ups), you could make a case for INT there as well.

That said, if you call "IFF if fair" on this, all these problems go away

[Thunderheads]

Am I the only one getting a headache from reading this one?! LOL😆

[Velho]

9 hours ago, Senor Azul said:

A fielder cannot be protected if he is chasing a batted ball that has been deflected or missed. If, however, he is trying to field a ball that has been deflected by another fielder, he can be protected as long as he is not chasing after the ball.

3 hours ago, SH0102 said:

The only time it can transfer to another player is when deflected , not dropped/bobbled/fumbled.  Once P made an error and another fielder gets it, protection doesn’t transfer.

2 hours ago, SH0102 said:

But once the initial fielder that did attempt to field it fumbles the ball, only HE can be protected within a step and reach.

Question then is: what is "deflected" and "missed"? Looking at uses of deflected in OBR it is implicitly any touch and I think "miss" doesn't have to mean "untouched". Under that, the catcher is protected as the ball comes off the pitcher because he is not chasing after the ball. (We'll leave out when he initially misses it and has to maybe "chase it"  )

re: IFF - It was not called. The ball didn't go very high and it never felt "routine" (at least not to me in the stands). Maybe it would have been routine if the catcher didn't have to stop/start around BR. Though, that gets into tangle/untangle which I'm unclear about - but maybe I'm the only one since no one has engaged here:

I failed to mention, this is Varsity NFHS in case that is relevant somehow.

[SH0102]

Everything I have read, rule book and case plays online, say the ball must deflect off the fielder to transfer protection, not have the player deflect it themselves by making an error and dropping the ball

[Richvee]

3 hours ago, SH0102 said:

A deflected ball (such as line drive off the shin or tip of glove) to another fielder gives that fielder protection, not dropping the ball and it rolling to another fielder

That's something I've never read or heard before. Do you have a cite? So you're saying protection can be transferred on   a ground ball or a line drive that is misplayed by a fielder and rolls near another fielder, but not on a pop up? I need to see this before I buy into this. 

[Replacematt]

6 minutes ago, SH0102 said:

Everything I have read, rule book and case plays online, say the ball must deflect off the fielder to transfer protection, not have the player deflect it themselves by making an error and dropping the ball

I'd go back and reread them.

[beerguy55]

2 minutes ago, SH0102 said:

Everything I have read, rule book and case plays online, say the ball must deflect off the fielder to transfer protection, not have the player deflect it themselves by making an error and dropping the ball

Now you're asking umpires to be scorekeepers???   The determination of what is or isn't an error is the job of the scorekeeper.   The intent of the "deflection" standard is to acknowledge that the force/impetus for the ball is still coming from the batter (ie, it's still a batted ball) - whether that's an "error" does not (should not) matter. 

In the OP, the ball coming off F1 going to F2 is still a batted ball.   

Instead of dropping the fly ball, if it had come to (almost) rest and the pitcher kicked it towards F2, that would not be a batted ball anymore. 

[Rich Ives]

1 hour ago, SH0102 said:

 (since rarely does a P field pop ups),

They do in youth league up through HS.   F1 is one of the top athletes at those levels and plays defense on non-pitching days - often SS.

[BLWizzRanger]

No, I don't see OBS on the pitcher.  The runner is focused on the catcher and it is the catcher that makes the BR do a stop/start. 

 

[SH0102]

I guess I will have to eat crow on this one, but I am having a difficult time understanding the spirit of this rule then.

When I read in the rule book about a fielder being protected after a deflected ball goes to them, I am imagining a line drive off the P's shin, or a first baseman diving at a rocket that tips off the edge of his glove and bounds towards the 2nd baseman.

I am not imagining the dropping and booting of a pop up

[Replacematt]

3 minutes ago, SH0102 said:

I guess I will have to eat crow on this one, but I am having a difficult time understanding the spirit of this rule then.

When I read in the rule book about a fielder being protected after a deflected ball goes to them, I am imagining a line drive off the P's shin, or a first baseman diving at a rocket that tips off the edge of his glove and bounds towards the 2nd baseman.

I am not imagining the dropping and booting of a pop up

There's your answer. Start imagining that. 

Seriously, it's that simple. Through the immediate period after the ball is fielded, it is possible to have (and transfer) protection on a batted ball, no matter what happens to the ball.  Even if a fielder chasing it can't be protected, it is possible (not required) that another fielder is protected.

[humanbackstop19]

I've got a big, loud, hard "That's nothing" on this. We don't have OBS initially because the dumfounded runner's actions were not impeded in any way.  After the deflection, we're in the area of the catcher's circle and both the BR and C were doing what they were supposed to be doing and nothing was intentional.  

[SH0102]

10 minutes ago, Matt said:

There's your answer. Start imagining that. 

Seriously, it's that simple. Through the immediate period after the ball is fielded, it is possible to have (and transfer) protection on a batted ball, no matter what happens to the ball.  Even if a fielder chasing it can't be protected, it is possible (not required) that another fielder is protected.

So you are saying I am over-thinking it...hmm, my wife may have told me that a time or two-hundred 🤪

[Mudisfun]

Assuming there are 2 outs, so that is why no one call IFF, or even signaled fair once F1 touched the ball, but I digress...

At some point in this play, I have OBS. Initially I am protecting F1 as he is heads up, running towards the play and actually makes the initial play attempt. The B/R is trying to avoid F2, and not making an attempt to advance, so maybe you can get OBS, but I don't think I have it there.

Once F1 drops/deflects the ball to F2, the B/R jukes around F2 and then has to dodge F1... I have OBS at that point.

 

[Mudisfun]

5 minutes ago, humanbackstop19 said:

I've got a big, loud, hard "That's nothing" on this. We don't have OBS initially because the dumfounded runner's actions were not impeded in any way.  After the deflection, we're in the area of the catcher's circle and both the BR and C were doing what they were supposed to be doing and nothing was intentional.  

I agree on F2 doing what he should be doing, but F1 is now in the way...

Makes me think about the Angels game with a pop up along the 1st base line... 2 fielders converged, one was protected and the B/R ran into the other. Ball was dropped and B/R was awarded 1st...

[Richvee]

18 minutes ago, Mudisfun said:

 

Assuming there are 2 outs, so that is why no one call IFF, or even signaled fair once F1 touched the ball, but I digress

 

We can assume 2 outs for the sake of discussion, but, unfortunately for our brothers on the field, both runners were returning to their bases.