Freak Baseball Play

[gregm]

I was just watching some videos on you tube and came across this one. I have not seen anything like this happen thus far and just curious if the umpire made the right call.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NGIZ_xhePo

Please forgive me if this has been alrady posted and discussed on here. No need to flame, just tell me and I will flame myself.

[bobjenkins]

Please forgive me if this has been alrady posted and discussed on here. No need to flame, just tell me and I will flame myself.

Flame away.

[gregm]

LOL Thanks

[gregm]

You sorry good for nothing rookie. You should have known that this has already been discussed on here. I don't care that you (I) can't find it on here on the search. Read the freakin rule book and figure it out. You are not even worthy to clean the dirt off the bottom of a T-Ball umpire's shoes.

How is that for a flame?

[Richard_Siegel]

You sorry good for nothing rookie. You should have known that this has already been discussed on here. I don't care that you (I) can't find it on here on the search. Read the freakin rule book and figure it out. You are not even worthy to clean the dirt off the bottom of a T-Ball umpire's shoes.

How is that for a flame?

Flaming like this will not be tollerated. Apologize to the members at once!

[gregm]

I offer my sincerest apology to all members of this board, except for myself of course. I may need a little help here. Does protocol call for me to flame myself for flaming myslef?

[Dano]

What is even worse.. is some of the comments on the youtube video.

[dileonardoja]

So was the call correct? I would have had obstruction since the pitcher already had an opportunity to field the ball on the mound and the ball hit off his foot. At that point doesn't he have the responsibility to avoid the runner? It seems from looking at the video initial contact occurs before the pitcher is in possession of the ball

7.09(e) It is interference by a batter or a runner when—He fails to avoid a fielder who is attempting to field a batted ball...

Is it still considered to be a batted ball when it deflects that far from the initial touch?

[robbyrudd45]

Well, for the record, the proper call should have been obstruction.

[dileonardoja]

Would you agree had the pitcher gained possession of the ball prior to the contact the B/R would be out?

[lawump]

Well, for the record, the proper call should have been obstruction.

As I recall, one poster posted that most of his pro connections (whom he contacted) would have had interference as opposed to obstruction. I'm in the interference group.

Either way, I'm glad it wasn't me on the field.

[robcichon]

obstruction on F1.

[OzUmp]

IMO You would have one hell of a tough time trying to sell obstruction when F1 was right there on top of the ball when he was contacted by the BR. Indeed F1 had time to gather the ball and throw out BR (granted BR had been tripped).

I can see where some would say Obstruction as F1 had deflected the ball when he intentionally stuck his foot out and contacted the ball. If you read the J/R bits on runner interference you could argue that F1 was no longer protected.

If you call obs. you punish F1 who made an all around great play. He intentionally stuck out his foot and likely kept the ball from going to the outfield; a certain base hit and perhaps an RBI. He then made a running diving stab and recovered the ball just in time to get nailed by BR and still threw him out. Don't know the exact sitch. but F1 potentially saved a basehit, an RBI and the game. I for one am not going to punish him for that.

Since F1 was right there on top of the ball when he was hit by BR and since he was no longer chasing the deflection but was actually there to recover it I would have been forced to uphold the out because of BR interference. Put me in the int. camp also.

[robbyrudd45]

Well, for the record, the proper call should have been obstruction.

As I recall, one poster posted that most of his pro connections (whom he contacted) would have had interference as opposed to obstruction. I'm in the interference group.

Either way, I'm glad it wasn't me on the field.

How would you have interference when he booted the batted ball? How would this be different than F4 booting a grounder off his chest then running into R1 while he's chasing after the loose ball (further than step and a reach)?

[Rash3UC]

Is the ball within a step and a reach of the fielder at the present time? Yes. Was the fielder still making a play on the ball to where he can make an out? Yes. Should the runner have avoided him? Yes Did the runner avoid him? No. Interference

[robbyrudd45]

Is the ball within a step and a reach of the fielder at the present time?

No. A step and a reach is from where he first boots it, not where it is as he chases it down.

[BlueSkies]

IMO You would have one hell of a tough time trying to sell obstruction when F1 was right there on top of the ball when he was contacted by the BR.
Agreed.
Didn't both F1 and B/R have an equal reason (right) to be at that particular place at that instant?
-F1 still has the right to field a deflected live ball.
-B/R may no longer be obliged avoid F1 after the batted ball was deflected. B/R also has a right to proceed to 1st on the narrow 3' path.
-And neither appears to have intentionally crashed the other.
Rule 7.09(j) Comment: . . . “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...
The recovery throw beat the B/R to 1st for the 3rd Out.
The ump got this right but I could see over-thinking this ruling in the heat of the moment.

[dash_riprock]

The ruling on the field was "nothing" - batter out at 1st. The game was protested, and the protest was upheld. Ruling - OBS on F1. Put the batter on 1st and replay the game from that point.

[BlueSkies]

The ruling on the field was "nothing" - batter out at 1st. The game was protested, and the protest was upheld. Ruling - OBS on F1. Put the batter on 1st and replay the game from that point.
Was the protest upheld because F1 "intentionally" tripped the B/R?
What level and league was this game?
How did you learn the protest follow up ruling?

[bobjenkins]

As I recall the first discussions, this was an NCAA game (but I could be wrong). When it happened, the NCAA did NOT have the rule / AR that they now have to the effect that "IF a player deflects the ball, then is again in the act of fielding it, contact will be interference." This new rele came out in the off-season right after this play.

In FED, it's clearly obstruction (8-4-2g).

In OBR (or one of the approved interps like PBUC or MLBUM), there's similar wording to the FED -- if the fielder has to move more than a step-and-a-reach, it's obstruction. Note, however, that if the ball deflects and ANOTHER fielder can still make a play, it's interference. So, some (all?) of the pro umps at Rob Drake's site would extend that sentence to include the original fielder. (I don't know if they were specifically instructed to rule this way.)

[dash_riprock]

The ruling on the field was "nothing" - batter out at 1st. The game was protested, and the protest was upheld. Ruling - OBS on F1. Put the batter on 1st and replay the game from that point.
Was the protest upheld because F1 "intentionally" tripped the B/R?
What level and league was this game?
How did you learn the protest follow up ruling?
It was a California Community College league game. Intent was not a factor. FWIW, the results of the protest were posted by a participant in that game.