Interference - protected fielders - deflections

[RBIbaseball]

I recently engaged in a discussion on facebook concerning interference. Lots of folks screenshotting rules, case plays, and interpretations - folks claiming their college clinc instructors and assignors say so, etc. I found myself in the overwhelming minority, so I would very much like to set the record straight for myself. I am most concerned with NFHS as that's the level I'm at, but would like to understand if it differs. EDIT: just to be clear, although it was a NCAA softball play, the arguments were that its the same at all levels baseball/softball.

Please square me away friends...

What I believe to be true:

-Only one fielder can be protected on a given play. Although we may change our mind on who is/should be protected as a play develops, we cannot protect more than one player on the same play.

-On a misplayed/spilled ball, a fielder is continued to be protected as long as the ball is still in their immediate vacinity as they continue to make their play (ie Step and a Reach), but as soon as it goes beyond that a baserunner should have the "right of way".

 

**NCAA softball. The play concerned F5 misplaying (error on what would be considered a sharp but routine play) a ground ball. The ball ricochets into the path of of R2 advancing, meanwhile F6 reacts and comes in to make a play. R2 and F6 essentially get tied up trying to avoid contact and F6 fails to make a play on the ball - R2 continues to 3B. I believe obstruction was called, but reversed and changed to Interference  after review.**

 

Their arguments:

-F6 is a protected fielder due to an apparent note in the NCAA rulebook (i only saw screenshots from wikileaks , lol) that mentions that a 2nd fielder is indeed protected on a batted ball that is deflected from a fielder.

-There is at least one case play shared that mentions a hard hit ball deflecting off F1 and that the next infielder to make a play on the ball should be protected.

 

My thinking:

-First off, I cannot find anything in FED rules or case plays that mentions a deflection like this.

-EVEN IF the deflection lingo is accurate, I would argue that a misplay on a routine ground ball is not a deflection. It's an error. And I think that it merits that logical distinction.

-The case play with F1 is different in my mind. It was actually a deflection. In that scenario, F1 never made or had a chance to make a legitmate play on the ball, so therefor he never was a protected fielder. The first protected fielder would be whoever is making the play on the deflection. Unlike in the example where it's clearly changing protection from one player to the other.

-If my step and reach understanding on a misplayed ball is accurate, then essentially the rules are saying that once an error is made and the ball "gets away" then that fielder is not protected. Or in other words, that fielder can't continue to chase after that ball with disregard to a runners rights to advance. However, I am to believe that a 2nd fielder can continue to chase after that ball with immunity?

 

 

Where am I wrong? I don't mind if I am, I would just like to be sure I'm right going forward. Is it actually a thing that on a play like this we would protect F5 on the initial fielding of the ball, then after a misplay continue to protect F5 until its beyond a step and a reach... Then after it's beyond that threshold, shift our protection to the next closest fielder that can make a play?

 

Thank you for reading

[maven]

30 minutes ago, RBIbaseball said:

-Only one fielder can be protected on a given play. Although we may change our mind on who is/should be protected as a play develops, we cannot protect more than one player on the same play.

This is incorrect, and the "although" statement is misleading.

A batted ball that deflects off a fielder to another fielder can involve protecting 2 different fielders. First, the one playing the initial batted ball is protected, then the one playing the deflected ball is protected.

You are correct that we may change our minds regarding who is protected. This typically involves a batted ball hit between 2 fielders, one of whom turns out to have had a better play on the ball. Sometimes, both can happen in one and the same play.

30 minutes ago, RBIbaseball said:

-EVEN IF the deflection lingo is accurate, I would argue that a misplay on a routine ground ball is not a deflection. It's an error. And I think that it merits that logical distinction.

You're running together unrelated concepts. An error is a scoring term used to assign responsibility for baserunners and earned/unearned runs if they score. A deflection is a term used to describe what happens to a moving baseball. A deflected ball might or might not involve an error by a fielder, depending on whether it involves a batted ball that could have been fielded with routine effort.

 

30 minutes ago, RBIbaseball said:

-If my step and reach understanding on a misplayed ball is accurate, then essentially the rules are saying that once an error is made and the ball "gets away" then that fielder is not protected. Or in other words, that fielder can't continue to chase after that ball with disregard to a runners rights to advance. However, I am to believe that a 2nd fielder can continue to chase after that ball with immunity?

This is correct. More specifically, once a fielder is no longer protected, he's liable for OBS if he hinders a runner. And that can happen instantaneously (see the coach who asks, "what's he supposed to do, disappear?" Obnoxious reply #1: yup. Obnoxious reply #2: "no, he's supposed to field the ball cleanly.").

On a batted ball in the infield, deflected or no, somebody is protected. If that's someone other than the initial fielder playing the ball, the runners will have to avoid him. I assume that addresses what your last sentence is asking (not sure what "continue to chase after that ball" implies).

[RBIbaseball]

23 minutes ago, maven said:

A batted ball that deflects off a fielder to another fielder can involve protecting 2 different fielders. First, the one playing the initial batted ball is protected, then the one playing the deflected ball is protected.

You're running together unrelated concepts. An error is a scoring term used to assign responsibility for baserunners and earned/unearned runs if they score. A deflection is a term used to describe what happens to a moving baseball. A deflected ball might or might not involve an error by a fielder, depending on whether it involves a batted ball that could have been fielded with routine effort.

 

I used the colloquially term to help illustrate the difference (that I have in my mind). I understand error isn't part of the rules. 

What I am trying to say is that a hard hit ball that ricochets off a fielder. ie 105 mph exit velo one hopper to F5 where he tries to protect himself as much as he stabs at the ball would be a "deflection" in my mind. A routine ground ball that a fielder bobbles, bounces off his chest, then he tries to bare hand it but instead swats it toward his buddy on accident hardly seems like a "deflection".

I was questioning the definition of deflection. It seems as though everyone agrees the interpretations suggest that any TOUCH = DEFLECTION, period. If that is indeed the case, then great - the more I know going forward. It just doesn't seem very intuitive and I couldn't find a definition.

23 minutes ago, maven said:

This is correct. More specifically, once a fielder is no longer protected, he's liable for OBS if he hinders a runner. And that can happen instantaneously (see the coach who asks, "what's he supposed to do, disappear?" Obnoxious reply #1: yup. Obnoxious reply #2: "no, he's supposed to field the ball cleanly.").

On a batted ball in the infield, deflected or no, somebody is protected. If that's someone other than the initial fielder playing the ball, the runners will have to avoid him. I assume that addresses what your last sentence is asking (not sure what "continue to chase after that ball" implies).

This is wear my logical brain has a hard time making sense of what seems like a contradiction of the spirit of the rule.

reply #2 "he's supposed to field the ball cleanly" ... funny but true, so that being said...

Once he misplays the ball and it gets beyond a 'step and a reach', then he is not protected anymore.  BUT... although he's not protected, his buddy who was picking his nose and sees the ball squirt away, is now protected as he runs toward it.  WHY?   it makes no sense to me that it would be one but not that other.

Either the initial fielder should be protected while he chases his misplayed ball across the infield, or the 2nd fielder shouldn't be protected as he chases his buddies misplayed ball across the infield.

 

So if his buddy who was picking his nose happens to be close to a runner when the ball squirts away and starts to move, INTERFERENCE ... seems silly. Albeit, there are many rules that when properly applied are just "is what it is buddy - thems the rules, nothing you could do, but you were in the wrong spot at the wrong time"

 

@maven TLDR: I was not aware that a deflection would allow us to protect a 2nd fielder on the same play. Lastly, in NFHS, what rule supports the deflection piece? because I searched and couldn't find anything.

[The Man in Blue]

I believe I am in your mindset @RBIbaseball . . . a deflection (hot shot, reaction) is something immediate and should extend protection as the initial play (think line drive off F1's glove).  I feel a misplayed ball (e.g., F4 lifted the glove too soon, booted the ball when pulling it out of the glove, etc.) is different than a deflection.

Since you mention softball, NFHS Softball says the protection is on the "initial play on a batted ball."  I would argue running down a teammates error is not an initial play on a batted ball.  Running to a deflected ball could be.

Here are the relevant NCAA Softball rules:

 

Essentially, NCAA is affording the runner the benefit of doubt when the path of the ball is quickly and radically altered.  Protection does not automatically shift or extend to another fielder.

[RBIbaseball]

11 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

I believe I am in your mindset @RBIbaseball . . . a deflection (hot shot, reaction) is something immediate and should extend protection as the initial play (think line drive off F1's glove).  I feel a misplayed ball (e.g., F4 lifted the glove too soon, booted the ball when pulling it out of the glove, etc.) is different than a deflection.

Since you mention softball, NFHS Softball says the protection is on the "initial play on a batted ball."  I would argue running down a teammates error is not an initial play on a batted ball.  Running to a deflected ball could be.

Here are the relevant NCAA Softball rules:

 

Essentially, NCAA is affording the runner the benefit of doubt when the path of the ball is quickly and radically altered.  Protection does not automatically shift or extend to another fielder.

Interesting.

So if I'm reading that right, NCAA Softball needs the secondary fielder's interference to be intentional.

 

Where is gets sticky is if there is hinderance, it is plausible if not likely to have hinderance in both directions (fielding and running).... so if you deem the interference was not intentional, then you would probably have obstruction going the other way, even those the second fielder is making a play on the ball, no?

--------

 

edit: and to your first paragraph, I agree with you. Which is why I brought the "error" lingo into effect. I believe the scorekeeper error to be a reasonable standard of deflection. Diving play that deflects off the glove, deflection. The same speed hit ball that goes under a routine backhand and ricochets off the foot, not deflection (in the context of protecting the next fielder). If the scorekeeper would call it an error, it probably wasn't a deflection. It just doesn't seem as though any arguments I've seen provide room for any judgement or distinction in this regard.

 

[maven]

1 hour ago, RBIbaseball said:

Once he misplays the ball and it gets beyond a 'step and a reach', then he is not protected anymore.  BUT... although he's not protected, his buddy who was picking his nose and sees the ball squirt away, is now protected as he runs toward it.  WHY?   it makes no sense to me that it would be one but not that other.

"Why is that the rule" questions have to be answered historically. OBS originally had no exception for fielders who are fielding batted balls. The rule evolved to afford fielders who are fielding a batted ball an exception, which OBR calls fielder right of way and is also known as "protection." Giving that fielder a limited protection from OBS improved the competitive balance of the game.

Over time, that protection also evolved in order to accommodate plays where a fielder initially is protected, but then fails to field the batted ball—a deflection. He loses the right of way, and is once again (and instantly) liable for OBS. 

But the defense is still entitled to play on the batted ball, and if another fielder is in a better position to do it, why wouldn't you protect that fielder? The rationale for doing so is exactly the same as for protecting the first fielder.

And the rules don't distinguish between a "merely" deflected hard shot and a misplayed slow roller. Once a batted ball gets away from a fielder, he usually loses his protection (though it's possible that he's still best positioned to field the deflected ball, as when a corner infielder deflects a ball into foul territory—though then right of way/protection from OBS is moot).

[RBIbaseball]

20 minutes ago, maven said:

"Why is that the rule" questions have to be answered historically. OBS originally had no exception for fielders who are fielding batted balls. The rule evolved to afford fielders who are fielding a batted ball an exception, which OBR calls fielder right of way and is also known as "protection." Giving that fielder a limited protection from OBS improved the competitive balance of the game.

Over time, that protection also evolved in order to accommodate plays where a fielder initially is protected, but then fails to field the batted ball—a deflection. He loses the right of way, and is once again (and instantly) liable for OBS. 

But the defense is still entitled to play on the batted ball, and if another fielder is in a better position to do it, why wouldn't you protect that fielder? The rationale for doing so is exactly the same as for protecting the first fielder.

And the rules don't distinguish between a "merely" deflected hard shot and a misplayed slow roller. Once a batted ball gets away from a fielder, he usually loses his protection (though it's possible that he's still best positioned to field the deflected ball, as when a corner infielder deflects a ball into foul territory—though then right of way/protection from OBS is moot).

Well said. Good explanation. If I was god of baseball for a day, I would protect the runner over a 2nd fielder on a "routine error" deflection. But alas, I'm not.

I ask again (but please don't take this as implying you have the obligation) to please point me where I can find this in black in white... specifically applying to NFHS if it exists. I couldn't find anything on the deflection extending protection piece.

I have always been confident in saying that two fielders cannot be protected on the same play, but today I learn.  Maybe the misnomer for me is that a deflection causes a whole new play (although that doesn't seem very intuitive)... so I'm still technically correct, eh.

 

[maven]

25 minutes ago, RBIbaseball said:

I ask again (but please don't take this as implying you have the obligation) to please point me where I can find this in black in white... specifically applying to NFHS if it exists. I couldn't find anything on the deflection extending protection piece.

BRD (2015) §345: FED "When a fielder muffs a batted ball and he must move to re-field it, if contact occurs in the base path, the umpire will protect the runner unless the official declares deliberate interference (8-4-2g)."

BRD §346: Play 208–346: R1. B1 rockets the ball of F1's glove. The ball rolls directly into the base path, and F4 races for it. BR has neared first at moment R1 crashes into the second baseman. The umpire judges the runner could have avoided the contact. F4 has not yet reached the ball at the time of the crash.... Ruling: In FED, R1 is out for interference.

[BigBlue4u]

5 hours ago, maven said:

I ask again (but please don't take this as implying you have the obligation) to please point me where I can find this in black in white... specifically applying to NFHS if it exists. I couldn't find anything on the deflection extending protection piece.

NFHS 8-4-2-g-1 "If two fielders try to field a batted ball and the runner contacts one or both, the umpire shall decide which one is entitled to field the ball and that fielder only is entitled to protection.  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 for avoiding contact."

[The Man in Blue]

1 hour ago, BigBlue4u said:

NFHS 8-4-2-g-1 "If two fielders try to field a batted ball and the runner contacts one or both, the umpire shall decide which one is entitled to field the ball and that fielder only is entitled to protection.  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 for avoiding contact."

I saw that when looking things up, but that is a different play.  IMO, it is referring to two fielders simultaneously going for the ball.  It gives us the “one at a time” clause, but does not preclude shifting the protection.

[RBIbaseball]

22 hours ago, maven said:

BRD (2015) §345: FED "When a fielder muffs a batted ball and he must move to re-field it, if contact occurs in the base path, the umpire will protect the runner unless the official declares deliberate interference (8-4-2g)."

BRD §346: Play 208–346: R1. B1 rockets the ball of F1's glove. The ball rolls directly into the base path, and F4 races for it. BR has neared first at moment R1 crashes into the second baseman. The umpire judges the runner could have avoided the contact. F4 has not yet reached the ball at the time of the crash.... Ruling: In FED, R1 is out for interference.

----Obligatory, hard shot deflection off the pitcher is not the same as a fielder muffing a routine ball.----

That being said, If that second one is literally the only reference to granting protection to a "2nd fielder" on a deflected ball, then I think it's a gigantic stretch to apply that in all "deflected" ball scenarios and grant full protecting to a fielder moving to field a deflection.

The first one highlights that the fielder has a "greater responsibility". Albeit was talking about the original fielder.

 

If nothing else it's feels like much of a grey area. Situation and judgement. Judging the intent, time to react, and negligence of either fielder or runner.

 

To put it another way:

When a defender is fielding a batted ball, the fielder has immunity. When a defender is not fielding a batted ball, the runner has immunity. On a deflected ball to a "2nd fielder" both fielder and runner should try to make room for one another and the umpire gets to decide what's fair..... Like, I guess that's where I'm at right now with the rules evidence I've seen and understand.

[JSam21]

15 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

I saw that when looking things up, but that is a different play.  IMO, it is referring to two fielders simultaneously going for the ball.  It gives us the “one at a time” clause, but does not preclude shifting the protection.

NFHS defenders are protected on their "initial attempt" on a batted ball. It doesn't say one defender and one attempt. So multiple defenders could have an initial attempt. A deflected ball is still a batted ball. 

[The Man in Blue]

On 6/4/2024 at 10:05 AM, JSam21 said:

NFHS defenders are protected on their "initial attempt" on a batted ball. It doesn't say one defender and one attempt. So multiple defenders could have an initial attempt. A deflected ball is still a batted ball. 

Correct.  Maybe I wasn’t clear … that case play (IMO) is talking about two fielders simultaneously going for a ball.  You can only protect one.

In the discussion, we are talking about two fielders making consecutive (not concurrent) attempts.  You can still only protect one at a time, but you can shift it as the play changes.

 

EDIT: Caught my own error in the misuse of concurrent and fixed it.

[JSam21]

2 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

Correct.  Maybe I wasn’t clear … that case play (IMO) is talking about two fielders simultaneously going for a ball.  You can only protect one.

In the discussion, we are talking about two fielders making concurrent attempts.  You can still only protect one at a time, but you can shift it as the play changes.

My apologies, I thought you were the OP on this thread. My fault. 

[RBIbaseball]

22 hours ago, JSam21 said:

NFHS defenders are protected on their "initial attempt" on a batted ball. It doesn't say one defender and one attempt. So multiple defenders could have an initial attempt. A deflected ball is still a batted ball. 

This succinct explanation makes more sense to me, even if it's what others have already been saying. Essentially, the rules support protecting each fielder in their initial attempt, as written.

NFHS

8-4-2e: ... or the runner hinders a fielder on the fielder's initial attempt to field a batted ball; A fielder is not protected, except from intentional contact if the fielder misplays the ball and has to move from the fielder's original location; ...

 

- So each fielder gets their initial attempt - check

- On a misplayed ball the fielder that misplayed it now requires INTENTIONAL contact from the runner if they have to move from the original location -  this one is a little more grammarific , as we go from "a fielder" to "the fielder". As I could argue "a fielder" is any fielder and "the fielder" is the original fielder that muffed the ball, therefore "a fielder" (any other fielder) is not protected if "the fielder" has to move from their original location. But I digress.

 

---------

Is a deflected ball still a batted ball though, in all circumstances? 

Separate question to understand our consistency:

After a routine muffed play by an infielder, a 2nd infielder grabs the "deflection" and throws the ball out of play. I would be inclined to award 2 bases from the ToT, because it is not the initial play by the infielder. The initial play was a muffed routine play.

I assume I would be wrong on this and it should be ToP, given that it's still an initial play on a batted ball by interference standards?

[JSam21]

15 minutes ago, RBIbaseball said:

 

Is a deflected ball still a batted ball though, in all circumstances? 

Separate question to understand our consistency:

After a routine muffed play by an infielder, a 2nd infielder grabs the "deflection" and throws the ball out of play. I would be inclined to award 2 bases from the ToT, because it is not the initial play by the infielder. The initial play was a muffed routine play.

I assume I would be wrong on this and it should be ToP, given that it's still an initial play on a batted ball by interference standards?

Well... once it is thrown... its no longer a batted ball. It has been thrown by a defender. Think of it this way. Balls in play have 3 status. Pitched, Batted, and Thrown. 

Fielding a batted ball is not a play by definition. In your situation, the throw out of play is still the first play by an infielder so the award is ToP.

[RBIbaseball]

25 minutes ago, JSam21 said:

Well... once it is thrown... its no longer a batted ball. It has been thrown by a defender. Think of it this way. Balls in play have 3 status. Pitched, Batted, and Thrown. 

Fielding a batted ball is not a play by definition. In your situation, the throw out of play is still the first play by an infielder so the award is ToP.

Okay I see you edited, so you get what I was saying...

Ya, so we all agree that a throw from the fielder out of play awards 2 bases from the Time of Throw.

one exception being 8-3-5b:

...on a batted ball which is the first play by the infielder, all runners including the batter-runner are awarded two bases from their positions at the time of the pitch. For purposes of this rule, the act of fielding is not considered a play... 

-------------

So I forgot about the bolded statement, which DIRECTLY addresses my question, but opens up another argument.

 

Continuing to play devils advocate, because now in my mind it opens up another can of worms of evidence to support the original argument of making a distinction between a "hard shot deflection" and not protecting a 2nd fielder on a muffed ball.

"For purposes of this rule, the act of fielding is not considered a play"

This verbiage only exists here... why? By it existing here, it implies that elsewhere in the rule book the act of fielding IS CONSIDERED A PLAY.

So the argument that a fielder gets to make an inital attempt at a batted ball WITH PROTECTION, then after deflection the NEXT fielder gets to do the same because it's still a batted ball doesn't seem so obvious.

If the act of fielding a routine ball and muffing it IS A PLAY, then that ball rolling away is no longer a batted ball because a play has been made on it.

-------------

The casebook play of a "deflection" off a pitcher is not evidence that all deflections are the same (to include a "deflection" from a muffed routine play). It specifically says a "rocket", and implies the pitcher didn't even have time to react, which would not be "an act of fielding".

[JSam21]

4 minutes ago, RBIbaseball said:

Okay I see you edited, so you get what I was saying...

Ya, so we all agree that a throw from the fielder out of play awards 2 bases from the Time of Throw.

one exception being 8-3-5b:

...on a batted ball which is the first play by the infielder, all runners including the batter-runner are awarded two bases from their positions at the time of the pitch. For purposes of this rule, the act of fielding is not considered a play... 

-------------

So I forgot about the bolded statement, which DIRECTLY addresses my question, but opens up another argument.

 

Continuing to play devils advocate, because now in my mind it opens up another can of worms of evidence to support the original argument of making a distinction between a "hard shot deflection" and not protecting a 2nd fielder on a muffed ball.

"For purposes of this rule, the act of fielding is not considered a play"

This verbiage only exists here... why? By it existing here, it implies that elsewhere in the rule book the act of fielding IS CONSIDERED A PLAY.

So the argument that a fielder gets to make an inital attempt at a batted ball WITH PROTECTION, then after deflection the NEXT fielder gets to do the same because it's still a batted ball doesn't seem so obvious.

If the act of fielding a routine ball and muffing it IS A PLAY, then that ball rolling away is no longer a batted ball because a play has been made on it.

-------------

The casebook play of a "deflection" off a pitcher is not evidence that all deflections are the same. It specifically says a "rocket", and implies the pitcher didn't even have time to react, which would not be "an act of fielding".

Because "a play" is defined as an attempt to retire a runner. While catching a fly ball or line drive retires a runner (batter-runner) it is not "a play" when determining the first play by an infielder.

 

[RBIbaseball]

17 minutes ago, JSam21 said:

Because "a play" is defined as an attempt to retire a runner. While catching a fly ball or line drive retires a runner (batter-runner) it is not "a play" when determining the first play by an infielder.

 

Okay, so if I understand what you're saying. That extra tidbit is only there to distinguish that if a line drive or pop fly was accidently dropped then the subsequent throw would still be the initial play.

And fielding a ball is not an attempt to retire a runner?  Why would an infielder field a ball without the intent to retire...  only once he attempts to tag or throw is it a play?

 

@JSam21 Just to be clear so I understand how to rule this, a routine ground ball that is muffed and deflects IS STILL A BATTED BALL. If it deflects in a direction where a 2nd fielder has a better play on the ball, then we are granting protection to that 2nd fielder with the same discretion as we would grant to any 1st fielder on a given play, correct?

[JSam21]

19 minutes ago, RBIbaseball said:

Okay, so if I understand what you're saying. That extra tidbit is only there to distinguish that if a line drive or pop fly was accidently dropped then the subsequent throw would still be the initial play.

And fielding a ball is not an attempt to retire a runner?  Why would an infielder field a ball without the intent to retire...  only once he attempts to tag or throw is it a play?

 

@JSam21 Just to be clear so I understand how to rule this, a routine ground ball that is muffed and deflects IS STILL A BATTED BALL. If it deflects in a direction where a 2nd fielder has a better play on the ball, then we are granting protection to that 2nd fielder with the same discretion as we would grant to any 1st fielder on a given play, correct?

The bolded is the relevant portion to what a play is.

 

As for your second question; yes we are providing the same protection for that fielder as well. The ball being deflected only gives the runner protection from being struck by the ball, not from hindering or impeding a defender. 

[RBIbaseball]

1 hour ago, JSam21 said:

The bolded is the relevant portion to what a play is.

 

As for your second question; yes we are providing the same protection for that fielder as well. The ball being deflected only gives the runner protection from being struck by the ball, not from hindering or impeding a defender. 

Understood.

 

So one more scenario based on you're explanations on where I was misunderstanding... based on your reasoning for the existence of "For purposes of this rule, the act of fielding is not considered a play":

 

What if a fly ball is muffed and the ball deflects ... could this be an exception where the 2nd fielder should not be protected, since attempting to catch a fly ball "is a play"... therefore the deflection is no longer technically a batted ball?

[noumpere]

25 minutes ago, RBIbaseball said:

 since attempting to catch a fly ball "is a play"...

It is?  Re-read the previous posts.

 

[RBIbaseball]

48 minutes ago, noumpere said:

It is?  Re-read the previous posts.

 

So there is a little bit of a contradiction in my mind.

--------------------------

We have

2 hours ago, RBIbaseball said:

only once he attempts to tag or throw is it a play?

 

2 hours ago, JSam21 said:

The bolded is the relevant portion to what a play is.

--------------------------------

but we also have

 

3 hours ago, RBIbaseball said:

 

"For purposes of this rule, the act of fielding is not considered a play"

This verbiage only exists here... why? By it existing here, it implies that elsewhere in the rule book the act of fielding IS CONSIDERED A PLAY.

 

 

2 hours ago, JSam21 said:

Because "a play" is defined as an attempt to retire a runner. While catching a fly ball or line drive retires a runner (batter-runner) it is not "a play" when determining the first play by an infielder.

 

 

By placing the "For the puroses of this rule" , and JSam explaining the reasoning that exception is there is to draw a distinction that a fly ball or line drive is not "a play" in this instance

Then it is implied that retiring a runner by catching a fly ball or line drive is a play in instances where you're not considering base awards for a ball thrown out of play.

 

@noumpere if that's not true, then why is the "for purposes of this rule, the act of fielding in not considered a play" in there? If you're suggesting the act of fielding is NEVER a play

[JSam21]

2 hours ago, RBIbaseball said:

So there is a little bit of a contradiction in my mind.

--------------------------

We have

 

--------------------------------

but we also have

 

 

 

By placing the "For the puroses of this rule" , and JSam explaining the reasoning that exception is there is to draw a distinction that a fly ball or line drive is not "a play" in this instance

Then it is implied that retiring a runner by catching a fly ball or line drive is a play in instances where you're not considering base awards for a ball thrown out of play.

 

@noumpere if that's not true, then why is the "for purposes of this rule, the act of fielding in not considered a play" in there? If you're suggesting the act of fielding is NEVER a play

I am now completely lost on whatever point you are trying to make. I feel like you are making this WAY too complicated. NFHS gives each defender protection for their initial attempt to field a batted ball. Fielding a batted ball is not considered a play when it comes to base awards. What other questions do you have? 

What other reason would the definition of "a play" encompassing the fielding of a batted ball be relevant? It might be written that way because of the "non-definition use" of the word play throughout the rule book. 

[RBIbaseball]

On 6/5/2024 at 3:11 PM, JSam21 said:

I am now completely lost on whatever point you are trying to make. I feel like you are making this WAY too complicated. NFHS gives each defender protection for their initial attempt to field a batted ball. Fielding a batted ball is not considered a play when it comes to base awards. What other questions do you have? 

What other reason would the definition of "a play" encompassing the fielding of a batted ball be relevant? It might be written that way because of the "non-definition use" of the word play throughout the rule book. 

To put it as direct as possible, I'm laying out my argument that fielding a batted ball and muffing it is a play (and much different than the case plays that SPECIFCY a "rocket" deflection), therefore the 2nd fielders attempt to field the deflected ball is no longer a batted ball and the runner would have the "right of way".

 

The only rules evidence that's been cited is the "on their initial attempt" ... Nothing that defines a deflection, and it's all but been said that 'every touch' is a deflection (which seems to be pulled out of thin air). I guess the technical thing I'm arguing is when a batted ball stops being a batted ball.

 

Why? ... It seems silly that we are continue to protect and reward the defense with impunity after a routine error.

 

I respect the fact you may still think I'm being an imbecile, but hopefully you at least understand my ramble now, lol