Here's one I thought I knew the answer to...

quote:

Originally posted by Chris Taylor:
Is there any conceivable circumstance where the runner is not called out for interference?

On this play, no. Automatic DP.

quote:

Is there any conceivable circumstance where the runner is not called out for interference? I'll admit I'm not a rules expert by any means, but I'm at a loss on this one

you dont need to be a rules expert on this one.......no way this situation should be missed.....

agree with dash 100%......automatic DP

Thanks, I didn't know about the DP, but it certainly makes sense. Are there any prudent options that a coach can pursue when the umpire has clearly blown a call like that? The plate umpire came halfway out to the "discussion", but never got involved. I'm not sure if our coach asked the field umpire if he would like help or not on the interpretation, but you've got to think that one of them would've got it right

"Just as he steps into the basepath and gloves the ball, the runner collides with his glove and knocks the ball loose."

Of course had to be there. But this sounds like a tag attempt to me. And must have been what the Umpire ruled, once the fielder has the ball the only way to interfer IMO would be to grab, crash or tackle the fielder. Sounds like blue got this one right.

Interesting thought, and that may indeed be what the umpire ruled, but in no way was there a tag attempt. Runner arrived just hair behind the ball...you could tell the fielder had no idea he was coming

"but in no way was there a tag attempt."

Regardless of what the fielder saw coming, had he hung on to the ball, the runner would have been out on the tag.

To be called for the int. the runner would:
1. have to interfer with the fielder fielding the ball, he didn't do that..

2. Crash the fielder, or malicious contact, he didn't do that

3. Interfere with the fielder making a throw and he didn't do that either

The OP said: "just as he steps into the basepath and gloves the ball, the runner collides with his glove and knocks the ball loose.." That's pretty clear INT to me.

The fielder gloved the ball, tagged the runner and the ball came out. I, and the umpire on the field will just have to agree to disagree with ya.

F4 placed himself there to field the ball, tag the runner and complete a DP, dang, it almost worked, play on.

Just goes to show why this game can be so frustrating at times...so much is left to the umpire's judgement. Like any of these stuations, you really did have to see it to make a decision. Just to further clarify, while I wouldn't say the runner "crashed the fielder", he did make some contact with his head (or hat) as well since he knocked his hat off. Again, I can't fault the runner at all because it was just one of those things that happen. After talking with our head coach this morning, it appears that was the umpire's point...that the runner tried to avoid, but the contact was unavoidable.

jjk, your point that F4 placed himself there to field the ball is correct, but since he didn't even have time to get out of his fielding position (or even move his glove), I can't go with the tag portion of your theory.

jjk, your thinking here is, um, well, unusual. Here is an excerpt from Jaksa/Roder's comments on interference:

"It is interference by a runner if such runner hinders a protected fielder during a fair or catchable batted ball.

A fielder is protected if he is trying to field a batted ball, and he is given priority to field it, and he is not chasing a deflected or missed fielding try.

A fielder is "trying to field" (or "in the act of fielding") a ball when
(i) he is positioning himself for the purpose of trying to glove a rapidly approaching ball, or
(ii) he is actually gloving the ball, or has gloved the ball and, without having to take steps, is trying to gain possesion of the ball, or
(iii) he is actually throwing the ball, or completing his throwing motion after throwing the ball ('following through')"

In summary, a fielder has to be given the opportunity to get to the ball, glove it, even bobble it, throw it, and finally have a complete follow through, before a runner can contact him. His protection doesn't stop at the instant he gloves the ball.

Chris Taylor, for R1 it really doesn't matter if he tried to avoid the fielder or not. It is still interference, and R1 should be out. The only significant judgement involved is whether to call out B/R also. Intent does matter in determining whether to call two outs. I think most umpires will call two outs here, since the action took place in front of the runner. A last ditch failed effort to avoid the fielder isn't good enough: the runner should be able to judge the path of the ball and the fielder in plenty of time to avoid the fielder.

3FingeredGlove- Thank you (and all others who replied) for taking the time to explain all that so well. That is why this board is such a great resource. The back and forth exchange of thoughts, and even the differing views, help clarify things...and also helps me realize that calls on the field in the heat of the moment are not always as clear cut as they sometimes seem from outside the fence (and from an admittedly biased viewpoint)

Why the DP? In what similar instances can you assume/call a DP?

See 3FG's response. Umpire judgment. If you think the INT was an attempt to prevent a DP, you can call 2. A similar instance would be a force play slide rule violation, where a DP would be mandatory in FED and NCAA.

quote:

Originally posted by Chris Taylor:
Just goes to show why this game can be so frustrating at times...so much is left to the umpire's judgment. Like any of these situations, you really did have to see it to make a decision. Just to further clarify, while I wouldn't say the runner "crashed the fielder", he did make some contact with his head (or hat) as well since he knocked his hat off. Again, I can't fault the runner at all because it was just one of those things that happen. After talking with our head coach this morning, it appears that was the umpire's point...that the runner tried to avoid, but the contact was unavoidable.

jjk, your point that F4 placed himself there to field the ball is correct, but since he didn't even have time to get out of his fielding position (or even move his glove), I can't go with the tag portion of your theory.

The umpire explained very well why it was interference, not why it wasn't. He didn't understand the rule and proved it by his explanation.

Don't know if you are allowed to protest, but this is a good place to do it. He clearly explained the play and that he mis-applied the rule.