ASA Runner and fielder contact

[N.E.HITMAN]

Quick shakedown, runner on second and first, ball hit up middle hits pitchers glove redirects towards SS. Runner on second base collides with SS in base path as he is trying to advance to third and SS is going for the deflected ball.

Is runner out or does he get awarded third?

 

[ureout]

Quick shakedown, runner on second and first, ball hit up middle hits pitchers glove redirects towards SS. Runner on second base collides with SS in base path as he is trying to advance to third and SS is going for the deflected ball.

Is runner out or does he get awarded third?

in all interference and obstruction calls it comes down to umpire judgement....a fielder must be given the oppurtunity to catch the ball...once a fielder muffs/boots the play all bets are off....if in the judgement of the umpire the runner was trying to avoid the fielder but the fielder suddenly changed course because ball went off his glove or another fielders glove and they collide you could have obstruction called...it's a tough call and I would have to see the play

 

[N.E.HITMAN]

Thanks that's what we had understood the call to be

 

[BretMan]

Since this was a deflected ball, the runner is out for interference only if his contact with the fielder is judged to have been intentional. If not intentional, then no penalty, live ball, play on.

The rules recognize that when a batted ball has been deflected (not just by the pitcher, but by any other fielder), fielders may suddenly and unavoidably change course to field it. Runners are not expected to be mind readers and predict which unpredictable course a fielder might take. So if the fielder chasing the deflected ball cuts in front of the runner, the rules give the runner a break, absolving him of an interference call unless he intentionally contacts the fielder.

 

[sjury]

It is a judgment call....but more then likely if it was deflected and the runner was going in a straight path, it'd be hard to call interference.

 

[JackoDaddy5]

Bret: Your situation had me thinking. What if the ball was a slow enough ball, (but still consider it a fairly well hit ball), that the pitcher moves to his right, sticks his glove out, tips the ball, but it doesn't appear to make the ball or fielder change direction. Maybe the deflected ball slowed down a bit, or instead of a line drive, it turned into a ground ball. In those cases where the SS didn't change direction, or move differently, then you'd have interference?

I do understand that you'd probably have to see it, and every situation is different. I'm just trying to clarify a bit what you were saying. Usually, a deflected ball that gets fielders doing unpredictable things, won't result in interference?

You also said in that situation, no penalty, live ball, play on. However, at what point does that become obstruction? The fielder is indeed going after a ball, but no longer a batted ball, correct?

Thanks in advance Bret.

 

[markf]

Did the runner end up getting tagged out or forced out and did the SS make the play on the ball? I personally wouldnt be calling interference on the runner. You might look at obstruction on the fielder if the runner doesnt make it to third just because there was an opportunity to field it at the pitchers position but all in all... I'd probably have to see it happen in front of me to make a call either way.

 

[irishmafia]

Bret: Your situation had me thinking. What if the ball was a slow enough ball, (but still consider it a fairly well hit ball), that the pitcher moves to his right, sticks his glove out, tips the ball, but it doesn't appear to make the ball or fielder change direction. Maybe the deflected ball slowed down a bit, or instead of a line drive, it turned into a ground ball. In those cases where the SS didn't change direction, or move differently, then you'd have interference?

I do understand that you'd probably have to see it, and every situation is different. I'm just trying to clarify a bit what you were saying. Usually, a deflected ball that gets fielders doing unpredictable things, won't result in interference?

You also said in that situation, no penalty, live ball, play on. However, at what point does that become obstruction? The fielder is indeed going after a ball, but no longer a batted ball, correct?

Thanks in advance Bret.

Deflected is deflected.

 

[BretMan]

Deflected is deflected.

What more can you say? :thumb:

The ball either touched/was touched by a fielder or it wasn't. If it was, then the rules covering a deflected ball will apply. There's no need for the umpire to judge the "degree of deflection", or how much, or how little, the ball changed course.

As for any possible obstruction, you would judge an obstruction the same as you would any other play. Is the fielder in the act of fielding the batted ball? If not, and he impedes the runner, then it's obstruction.

Essentially, on this play a deflected batted ball is treated the same as any other batted ball, with the lone exception that any interference with the fielder fielding it must be intentional.

 

[irishmafia]

What more can you say? :thumb:

The ball either touched/was touched by a fielder or it wasn't. If it was, then the rules covering a deflected ball will apply. There's no need for the umpire to judge the "degree of deflection", or how much, or how little, the ball changed course.

As for any possible obstruction, you would judge an obstruction the same as you would any other play. Is the fielder in the act of fielding the batted ball? If not, and he impedes the runner, then it's obstruction.

Essentially, on this play a deflected batted ball is treated the same as any other batted ball, with the lone exception that any interference with the fielder fielding it must be intentional.

Absolutely. The fielder cannot OBS if fielding a batted ball.

 

[ureout]

As for any possible obstruction, you would judge an obstruction the same as you would any other play. Is the fielder in the act of fielding the batted ball? If not, and he impedes the runner, then it's obstruction.
Bretman....I agree but disagree with you on this....yes it is a judgement call but if runner was running around/behind a fielder who is trying to make a play on a ball and the fielder boots the ball or ball takes a wicked hop which sends him backwards into the runner then I would have obstruction...the fielder was given the chance to field tha ball cleanly and he did not.

 

[irishmafia]

As for any possible obstruction, you would judge an obstruction the same as you would any other play. Is the fielder in the act of fielding the batted ball? If not, and he impedes the runner, then it's obstruction.
Bretman....I agree but disagree with you on this....yes it is a judgement call but if runner was running around/behind a fielder who is trying to make a play on a ball and the fielder boots the ball or ball takes a wicked hop which sends him backwards into the runner then I would have obstruction...the fielder was given the chance to field tha ball cleanly and he did not.

It is the runners responsibility to avoid the fielder in all cases regardless of the bounce or direction it takes.

 

[ureout]

irishmafia....I disagree once the fielder has been given the oppurtunity to field a ball cleanly and he doesnt then it becomes umpire judgement whether after booting the ball he veered into the path of the runner who was trying to avoid him

 

[Joker]

irishmafia....I disagree once the fielder has been given the oppurtunity to field a ball cleanly and he doesnt then it becomes umpire judgement whether after booting the ball he veered into the path of the runner who was trying to avoid him

use it

 

[sjury]

Booting a batted ball and trying to field a bad hop are two different things. You boot a ball and it rolls between the runners legs you have to yield to the runner. If the ball takes a wicked hop and you step back or to the side to field it the runner must yield to you.

 

[BretMan]

As for any possible obstruction, you would judge an obstruction the same as you would any other play. Is the fielder in the act of fielding the batted ball? If not, and he impedes the runner, then it's obstruction.
Bretman....I agree but disagree with you on this....yes it is a judgement call but if runner was running around/behind a fielder who is trying to make a play on a ball and the fielder boots the ball or ball takes a wicked hop which sends him backwards into the runner then I would have obstruction...the fielder was given the chance to field tha ball cleanly and he did not.

Here's where umpire judgment comes into play:

Suppose the fielder boots it, then the ball is still within his reach and he's bending down to pick it up. This can be judged as still being "in the act of fielding the ball". No obstruction.

Suppose he boots it and it rolls several feet away, so that he has to chase after it. Now he may be judged as NOT "in the act of fielding the ball". Obstruction.

In other words, just as I posted above...As for any possible obstruction, you would judge it the same as you would any other play.

 

[ureout]

Here's where umpire judgment comes into play:

Suppose the fielder boots it, then the ball is still within his reach and he's bending down to pick it up. This can be judged as still being "in the act of fielding the ball". No obstruction.

Suppose he boots it and it rolls several feet away, so that he has to chase after it. Now he may be judged as NOT "in the act of fielding the ball". Obstruction.

In other words, just as I posted above...As for any possible obstruction, you would judge it the same as you would any other play.

yes I agree with you....but some think no matter if the ball was booted or not that it is always interference

 

[JackoDaddy5]

Since this was a deflected ball, the runner is out for interference only if his contact with the fielder is judged to have been intentional. If not intentional, then no penalty, live ball, play on.

So, since it was a deflected ball, you'd have the SS fielding a deflected ball, not a batted ball. Then when they made conctact, you'd go with 'delayed dead ball', and protect the runner to 3rd (probably, depending on where the ball ended up), when the runner hit the SS?

Trying to find the final solution to the OP.

 

[irishmafia]

So, since it was a deflected ball, you'd have the SS fielding a deflected ball, not a batted ball. Then when they made conctact, you'd go with 'delayed dead ball', and protect the runner to 3rd (probably, depending on where the ball ended up), when the runner hit the SS?

Trying to find the final solution to the OP.

No, a deflected batted ball is a deflected BATTED ball. The only rules which change is that for INT to be ruled, the runner's actions would have to be intentional or avoidable, in the umpire's judgment.

 

[JackoDaddy5]

****... I'm trying Irish...I promise.

So just incidental contact?

An example not related to that play, but when a right handed batter hits a 'swinging bunt', and he takes off toward first, and the catcher jumps out to field the ball... you'd just go with incidental contact. Same type of thing? It just seems so rare that it's not interference or obstruction when contact is made.

 

[irishmafia]

****... I'm trying Irish...I promise.

So just incidental contact?

An example not related to that play, but when a right handed batter hits a 'swinging bunt', and he takes off toward first, and the catcher jumps out to field the ball... you'd just go with incidental contact. Same type of thing? It just seems so rare that it's not interference or obstruction when contact is made.

You are referring to the famous Armbrister-Fisk collision of 1975.

In this type of play, if both the BR is doing what he is supposed to be doing (advancing to 1B) and the catcher is doing what he is supposed to be doing (attempting to field a batted ball), it is "incidental" contact. Before I go any further, let me emphasize, this ONLY applies the play in question and is not a general ruling or interpretation to be applied to other situations.

As long as neither make an act to affect the other (i.e. reaching out and pushing/guiding the other player, all is well and the play continues. And before somebody says it, no, simply running into each other is neither an act of INT or OBS.

This interpretation has been upheld by ASA and I would assume most, if not all, other sanctioning bodies.

 

[JackoDaddy5]

Yeah. I read a post where somebody used that as an example, and that was all I could think of as incidental. I thought most often contact would be INT or OBS. Thanks for getting that out of my head, and making me think..

Ok... Last one, I promise...

Say the first baseman is playing just about even with the bag, very close to first base. There is a runner on first.
Hard ball hit to the left of the first baseman, he dives for the ball, and when doing so he hits the runner on first who took off toward 2nd on contact.

1. The baserunner is knocked over, and is thrown out at 2nd by the right fielder on the force out.
2. The baserunner advances to 2nd safely.

In both of these cases, so long as the contact wasn't deemed intentional, play would just resume?

 

[irishmafia]

Say the first baseman is playing just about even with the bag, very close to first base. There is a runner on first.
Hard ball hit to the left of the first baseman, he dives for the ball, and when doing so he hits the runner on first who took off toward 2nd on contact.

1. The baserunner is knocked over, and is thrown out at 2nd by the right fielder on the force out.
2. The baserunner advances to 2nd safely.

In both of these cases, so long as the contact wasn't deemed intentional, play would just resume?

If the ball has not passed F3, it is INT. Runner is out, BR awarded 1B unless the umpire judges R1 was intentionally attempting to break up a double play.

And remember, you promised that was you last question.