Runner Interference or Not, After An Infielder Has Touched a Batted Ball

[Mudder]

Two situations, thoughts if one, or both, or neither are runner interference, and cite rule references, case play, etc.

OBR

1. R2, hard hit ground ball to SS, R2 is headed to 3B, ball bounces off of fielder's glove and goes to his right and just in front of him by a foot or 2 max, just as the runner is running by him, fielder reaches over to pick up the ball with his bard hand, and his hand gets tangled up in the runner's legs as the runner is going by, causing a delay in the fielder picking up the ball, he throws to 1B, not it time to get the batter/runner, R2 gets to 3B safely.

2. R2, hard hit ground ball to SS, R2 is headed to 3B, ball bounces off of fielder's glove and goes to his right and just in front of him by a foot or 2 max, just as the runner is running by him, fielder reaches over to pick up the ball, and the runner collides with fielder, causing the fielder to have no play on the BR at 1B, and R2 gets to 3B safely.  There was nothing deliberate on the action of the runner, he was just running in his base path to 3B.

[Velho]

Did you not like the answer in the below thread? 😁

All the above situations and the one below are the same.

 

[Mudder]

I would like them if I can see them, got a notification that the original didn't post, I don't see the responses, so I reposted it, perhaps you can fill me me on the responses

[Velho]

Huh, that is odd.

What I posted in the other thread:

6.01(a)(10) "It is interference by a batter or a runner when: (10) He fails to avoid a fielder who is attempting to field a batted ball.  PENALTY FOR INTERFERENCE: The runner is out and the ball is dead."

MLBUM Interp 58(4) clarifies that "attempting to field a batted ball" includes a deflection off the fielder (that doesn't hit the runner) which is "within the fielder’s immediate reach".

MLBUM Interp 58 (4) With the bases loaded, batter hits a sharp ground ball that deflects off of the shortstop and starts to roll away from him. As the shortstop starts to go after the ball, the runner from second collides with the shortstop.

Ruling: 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. (In this situation the fielder is still considered “in the act of fielding” the ball and has not “missed” as described in the Comment to Official Baseball Rule 6.01(h).) However, if the ball is not within reach of the fielder after it deflects off the fielder (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 Official Baseball Rule 6.01(h)(2).

[Mudder]

Great thanks

So going back to my original post, based on those MLBUM interp's

Ex 1 would not be runner interference, because the runner did not contact the fielder after the fielder touched the ball

but

Ex 2 would be runner interference because the runner did contact the fielder after the fielder touched the ball as the fielder was still considered in the act of fielding the ball after he touched because was still in the fielder's immediate reach.

Is this correct, or are both examples still Runner Interference?

[Velho]

45 minutes ago, Mudder said:

Is this correct, or are both examples still Runner Interference?

Good read. I see the issue - and lowly me would recommend MLB tweak their manual since "contact" is not necessary for Interference nor Obstruction so I'll say it this way:

1) After the ball deflects off the shortstop, does the umpire judge it to be within the fielder’s immediate reach? If yes, then:

2) Does the umpire judge the runner hindered the fielder's ability to field the ball? Contact is not necessary.

If yes, Interference.

Context of the exact play is king but, as described, both are Interference.

[BigBlue4u]

5 hours ago, Mudder said:

Two situations, thoughts if one, or both, or neither are runner interference, and cite rule references, case play, etc.

OBR

1. R2, hard hit ground ball to SS, R2 is headed to 3B, ball bounces off of fielder's glove and goes to his right and just in front of him by a foot or 2 max, just as the runner is running by him, fielder reaches over to pick up the ball with his bard hand, and his hand gets tangled up in the runner's legs as the runner is going by, causing a delay in the fielder picking up the ball, he throws to 1B, not it time to get the batter/runner, R2 gets to 3B safely.

2. R2, hard hit ground ball to SS, R2 is headed to 3B, ball bounces off of fielder's glove and goes to his right and just in front of him by a foot or 2 max, just as the runner is running by him, fielder reaches over to pick up the ball, and the runner collides with fielder, causing the fielder to have no play on the BR at 1B, and R2 gets to 3B safely.  There was nothing deliberate on the action of the runner, he was just running in his base path to 3B.

The general guideline for determining interference on this type of play is that a fielder within a step and a reach of a batted ball is considered in the act of fielding.

[The Man in Blue]

I was waiting for somebody to bring up “step and a reach” … 

IMO, that is a bailout.  While I am not a fan of “he muffed it, why bail him out” as an immediate reaction to a play, in this instance I take that stance.

A ball in immediate reach is NOT the same as a step and reach.  Why would TPTB use immediate reach as a standard?  It allows the fielder to take a position and the runner to avoid it.  Step and a reach now puts an extra and undue burden on the runner to avoid not just the fielder’s position, but any potential movement.