Tangle Untangle - BR &F5

[Velho]

Tangle Untangle never contemplated BR & F5. Small field, small players, so not that it would have (and it was reactionary in the first place) but an interesting play from yesterday.

Rule 6.01(a)(10) Comment: When a catcher and batter-runner going to first base have contact when the catcher is fielding the ball, there is generally no violation and nothing should be called. “Obstruction” by a fielder attempting to field a ball should be called only in very flagrant and violent cases because the rules give him the right of way, but of course such “right of way” is not a license to, for example, intentionally trip a runner even though fielding the ball. If the catcher is fielding the ball and any fielder, including the pitcher, obstructs a runner going to first base, “obstruction” shall be called and the base runner awarded first base.

 

[noumpere]

Assuming the SB rule is the same as the BB rule:

1) This isn't "tangle / untangle" -- that can only happen in the immediate vicinity of home plate and nearly immediately after B becomes BR.

2) It appears to me that F5 was the protected fielder.  So, BR would be out for INT.

[Velho]

42 minutes ago, noumpere said:

Assuming the SB rule is the same as the BB rule:

This being LL, the rules for SB and BB are exactly the same for this play. (I can't speak to other SB rulesets).

[MadMax]

… unless the batted ball was already foul (or, in foul territory). It looks like the ball had already bounded, and was in its descent definitely foul of the line. And, with how heavy that grass is, it likely would never have gone back fair. 
 

EDIT: Now that I’m able to see this on a larger (than a postage stamp) view, and slow it down, she (Batter) popped it up. Thus, it is INT like @noumpere concluded. 

Edited July 19 by MadMax
Thought it was a ground ball at first (small) viewing

[jimurrayalterego]

26 minutes ago, MadMax said:

… unless the batted ball was already foul (or, in foul territory). It looks like the ball had already bounded, and was in its descent definitely foul of the line. And, with how heavy that grass is, it likely would never have gone back fair. 
 

 

Let's say your mis view was correct. Do we care if the ball might have gone fair? The B-R interfered with a fielder trying to field a batted ball and touched it to make it foul. I can't find an exception to not call the B-R out.

[MadMax]

20 hours ago, jimurrayalterego said:

Do we care if the ball might have gone fair?

Sure. If this was a squibber or “angry hornet” 🐝, chewing up the line, neither fair nor foul yet, and the fielder – F1 or F3 typically – approaches the ball to try and touch / play / field it fair, with the BR converging on him/her, and the BR interferes, then by all means, that’s INT. 
That’s not what happened, even in my mistakenly perceived / constructed scenario. Instead of it directly off the bat, I saw it chopped straight down and then arcing high in the air. If you’ll notice, the BR takes off for 1B directly, and F5 clips her from behind, with the ball perceivably over foul territory, by that point. And you’re saying we should call the BR out for that?? 

By that logic, what keeps a bold F1 from running through a BR on a bunt attempt which is propelled foul, albeit slowly? 

Extending that logic further, if we have a bunt or chopper up the line, against a drawn in infield, and the F3 lets the ball go by him, in foul territory, but the BR runs right into him, are we awarding 1B on OBS? The batted ball isn’t technically foul yet, until it passes the bag on the foul side, or is touched in foul territory… right? That is the principle, is it not? Can we really award OBS on a foul ball? 

[jimurrayalterego]

3 hours ago, MadMax said:

Sure. If this was a squibber or “angry hornet” 🐝, chewing up the line, neither fair nor foul yet, and the fielder – F1 or F3 typically – approaches the ball to try and touch / play / field it fair, with the BR converging on him/her, and the BR interferes, then by all means, that’s INT. 
That’s not what happened, even in my mistakenly perceived / constructed scenario. Instead of it directly off the bat, I saw it chopped straight down and then arcing high in the air. If you’ll notice, the BR takes off for 1B directly, and F5 clips her from behind, with the ball perceivably over foul territory, by that point. And you’re saying we should call the BR out for that?? 

 

Your logic makes sense. I'm asking if there is a cite allowing a runner to interfere with a fielder fielding a batted ball that isn't a fly ball and most likely will be foul. And for your "squibber" what do we have if the ball rolls foul after the INT? 

[JSam21]

10 hours ago, jimurrayalterego said:

Your logic makes sense. I'm asking if there is a cite allowing a runner to interfere with a fielder fielding a batted ball that isn't a fly ball and most likely will be foul. And for your "squibber" what do we have if the ball rolls foul after the INT? 

It doesn't matter when the BR is the one who caused the interference. If it was another runner then the fair/foul would come into play. 

The only reason why we would need the fair/foul status on a "squibber" is to determine what to do with the batter-runner after the interference call. Since, on this play, they are out on the interference it doesn't matter if it rolls foul after the hinderance. 

[The Man in Blue]

This is one of those "ick" plays where we have to hold our nose and make the call.

It feels wrong because, as Max pointed out, the fielder is literally running up the BR's backside.  How is the BR supposed to avoid a fielder that she cannot even see?  It is not something that the batter had any real control over.  Should we instruct fast catchers to simply run up the slow BR's ass when going out for a bunt?  This will cause more (and more severe) injuries than throwing during RLI.

It also feels wrong because of inconsistencies (across codes and within codes) in language and application when it comes to intent.  If Manny Machado can intentionally run into the most likely throwing lane that is behind him, how can we penalize a batter who is being run over from behind?

Nonetheless, I do agree, the rules support the interference call.  I just don't like it.

[MadMax]

Here's the thing, @The Man in Blue... on this play in the original post, there's INT. The Batter popped the ball into the air, and hindered – whether intentional or not, in this case, is irrelevant... in this case – the fielder's attempt to catch it. 
There. Call INT, Batter is out, move on to the next. Done. 

On the proposed variation of play, in which the batted ball hits the ground, is where I interject my skepticism, cynicism, and criticism (yup! All three -isms!). My issue isn't with the rule per se, it's with the imperative – "We must call INT...". 
If a batted ball is obviously foul, and the BR sprints out of the box, up the line, and contacts the F1 who's reactively headed towards that batted (foul) ball, are we calling OBS and awarding BR 1B?? In that same vein, say we have a batted ball that is headed towards and ultimately into the stands... are we calling INT on the 1BC for contacting / impeding the F3 at the moment the ball left the bat? No, that would be absurd. We observe INT occurring, and we apply the penalty if warranted, but we – here's the big part – determine where the ball ultimately goes, and if the INT affected / changed that outcome. 

If we didn't do this, then that incentivizes one of the two parties to engage in these... contestations... so as to draw a call. If the imperative exists, then you better believe that a F1 will "steer towards" a BR on any batted (ground) ball in the vicinity of home plate or up the 1BL, regardless of it being Fair or Foul. We see eerily similar antics with Runners steering / going out of their way so as to draw an OBS call (typically during a rundown). 

So, on this proposed play, I've got this ball going definitely Foul. And in my judgement, that outcome is unaffected by any/the contact that occurred between BR and F5. I completely agree, that if the batted ball's status is still undeterminable – ie. "maybe" – with a chance of being / ending Fair, and the ("protected") fielder has that opportunity to make it Fair, we should call and apply INT. 

[Velho]

Do we have anything in baseball like the below from USA Softball Rulebook?

33-A "If, in the judgment of the umpire, the foul fly ball could not have been caught with ordinary effort, a strike is called, the ball is dead, and the batter remains at bat."

33-D " If interference occurs by the runner on a foul fly ball not caught but, in the umpire’s judgment, could have been caught with ordinary effort had interference not occurred, the runner is out and the batter is also out. If, in the judgment of the umpire, the foul fly ball could not have been caught with ordinary effort, a strike is called, the ball is dead, and the batter remains at bat."

[noumpere]

2 hours ago, MadMax said:

On the proposed variation of play, in which the batted ball hits the ground, is where I interject my skepticism, cynicism, and criticism (yup! All three -isms!). My issue isn't with the rule per se, it's with the imperative – "We must call INT...". 

Agreed.  How often do we see 1bc / 3bc "filed" a foul ball?  That's never called INT.  I know NCAA used to have a rule that if the BR contacted a foul ball, he was out.  They then changed it mabe 15 years a go to "the ball must have a chance to become fair."

57 minutes ago, Velho said:

Do we have anything in baseball like the below from USA Softball Rulebook?

33-A "If, in the judgment of the umpire, the foul fly ball could not have been caught with ordinary effort, a strike is called, the ball is dead, and the batter remains at bat."

I don't think there's anything directly on this, but if there's no play, there's no interference.

[Velho]

7 hours ago, noumpere said:

They then changed it mabe 15 years a go to "the ball must have a chance to become fair."

I recall (but maybe imagined that) exact reference. Other than the softball above, the only thing I'm able to find is in regards to a bunted ball:

7-11-o "After hitting or bunting a foul ball, the batter-runner intentionally deflects the course of the ball that has a chance of becoming fair"

Is there another cite I'm missing?

[The Man in Blue]

11 hours ago, MadMax said:

We observe INT occurring, and we apply the penalty if warranted, but we – here's the big part – determine where the ball ultimately goes, and if the INT affected / changed that outcome. 

If we didn't do this, then that incentivizes one of the two parties to engage in these... contestations... so as to draw a call. If the imperative exists, then you better believe that a F1 will "steer towards" a BR on any batted (ground) ball in the vicinity of home plate or up the 1BL, regardless of it being Fair or Foul. We see eerily similar antics with Runners steering / going out of their way so as to draw an OBS call (typically during a rundown). 

 

We can call "Infield fly, if fair!"  We cannot call "TIME! Interference if fair!"

You know that we cannot determine where the ball ultimately goes and if the interference affected/changed the play.  That determination has already been made the moment we do or do not call "TIME!"  The moment the interference occurs, the ball is dead OR the moment the non-interference occurs and we do not kill it, we have already determined there was no play to be made (whether that is due to a foul ball or simply "no, the fielder wasn't getting there").  Nothing else exists after that moment for that call.

Maybe I am missing something (and I did misread your post initially and thought you said you saw it bounce), but I don't understand why discussion of a foul ball was even introduced.

Let's run with it, though.  Let's say it is not a ball clearly headed foul, but rather a ball practicing drunken monkey kung fu as it heads up the line.  Again, we cannot wait to see what happens.  At the moment the batter-runner "causes an incident" we have to either: (A) stop it all right there and make a call based on the ball's position (fair or foul) at that moment; OR (B) adjudicate there is no interference and allow it to play out.  Waiting to see and then adjudicating is not an option (even if it is prudent).  

The softball change brought up by @Velho was made as an effort to rectify this created conundrum on foul fly balls (why would we call the batter out when the worst thing that would have happened is a foul ball?).  I will give the softball world their due: they try to fix these problems while baseball culture (read: rules writers) largely tries to pretend they will just go away.

You know I 100% agree with putting an end to the antics that we contort ourselves into allowing.  

[noumpere]

On 7/25/2026 at 2:37 AM, Velho said:

I recall (but maybe imagined that) exact reference. Other than the softball above, the only thing I'm able to find is in regards to a bunted ball:

7-11-o "After hitting or bunting a foul ball, the batter-runner intentionally deflects the course of the ball that has a chance of becoming fair"

Is there another cite I'm missing?

I think that’s it. The last seven words are what was added.