Obstruction?

The fielder has the right of way in this instance. He is fielding the ball so he has the right to the baseline. If F3 had moved down the line and they both were going for it then you have to decide who gets the protection and the other has to make sure he doesn't obstruct the runner.

Here's a Question and I would like your thoughts as Umpire's what the ruling would and or should be?

Since Manny has been getting away with knocking off his helmet as he run's the base path's.
Is that OK.
Or could that be considered Obstruction??
Your Thought's.
EH

Just as a matter of clarification, a Batter-Runner can not be called for obstruction........obstruction can only be called on the defense, not the offense......

What you are asking is is this interference and the answer is no......unless Manny throws his batting helmet deliberately at the ball......which he does not do.....

But here is the offical interp:

FED from RUMBLE:

If a live ball hits a detached helmet it is not interference and the ball remains in play........

BOTH NCAA and OBR share this following interpretation.

An important distinction must be made: If a batted or thrown ball accidentally hits an intentionally detached helmet, that is not interference and the ball remains alive. The batter runner or runner must deliberately throw his helmet and hit the ball before the umpire will assess any interference penalty.

NO interference.......

quote:

.... they both were going for it then you have to decide who gets the protection and the other has to make sure he doesn't obstruct the runner.

MST, not doubting for an instant what you say. But is this clearly spelled out somewhere?

Example: slow dribbler up the first base line, both F1 and F3 are going for the ball. F1 winds up with the ball, and the runner (in the running lane) collides with F3.

piaa_ump.

I'm more concerned about a Fielder getting hurt stepping on a deliberately tossed helmet.
It will happen if this type of behaviour is aloud to take place in all the levels.
JMO
EH

quote:

Originally posted by StyleMismatch:

quote:

.... they both were going for it then you have to decide who gets the protection and the other has to make sure he doesn't obstruct the runner.

MST, not doubting for an instant what you say. But is this clearly spelled out somewhere?

Example: slow dribbler up the first base line, both F1 and F3 are going for the ball. F1 winds up with the ball, and the runner (in the running lane) collides with F3.

Interps address this. The umpire must decide which fielder is entitled to protection, based on location, proximity to ball, better chance to field/put out runner, etc. Only that runner gets protection. Its umpires judgement...and in fact, the fielder given protection could change from one fielder to another during the course of the play- its happened!

In your case the other fielder could very easily be called for obstruction of the runner.

LonBlue67 is correct in this thread also. Interps say that you can only protect one fielder, the other has to give way to the runner. The runner has to avoid interfering with the fielder but he can't be held responsible for two fielders. All codes have a version of this interp. OBR,Fed and NCAA.

I watched the video on YouTube, than I was looking for other videos and found the same one again. In its description it said the play was appealed and eventually he was called safe.

Doesn't the protection of a fielder end when the ball is deflected and he chases it? If the pitcher's right to protection ended once he deflected the ball, then he obstructed the runner by "chasing" after it and getting in the way of the runner, right???? If he had deflected it directly to the first baseman, the first baseman then would be protected as he is not chasing a deflected ball (it just went to him)?? However, that's not what happened on the video as the pitcher did chase a deflected ball and got in the way.

I agree with obstruction due to the boot, the last dive was in attempting to gain control. Obstruction IMO.

Fed/NCAA questions: I'll be testing in Jan. or Feb.

Q. Any way this play could be construed as an intentional, ejectionable, obstruction in FED? Looked to me like F1 has some "open field tackling experience".

Q. Any way this could be construed as an intentional, ejectionable, offense for the BR?
Any concern that BR may have had "intentional contact"? Any liability to avoid the collision for the BR?

Not particularly this play, but I can see a BR thinking as long as I'm in the lane, F1 is fair game. for example; same play resulted in F1 Fielding the ball "prior" to the contact, now any conern for BR to "avoid" the contact?

Oh and the helmet thing: FED/NCAA, isn't
"intentionally" removing the helmet during live ball? Warning? Then ejection? Or something horrible like that?

quote:

Originally posted by jjk:
I agree with obstruction due to the boot, the last dive was in attempting to gain control. Obstruction IMO.

Fed/NCAA questions: I'll be testing in Jan. or Feb.

Q. Any way this play could be construed as an intentional, ejectionable, obstruction in FED? Looked to me like F1 has some "open field tackling experience".

Q. Any way this could be construed as an intentional, ejectionable, offense for the BR?
Any concern that BR may have had "intentional contact"? Any liability to avoid the collision for the BR?

Not particularly this play, but I can see a BR thinking as long as I'm in the lane, F1 is fair game. for example; same play resulted in F1 Fielding the ball "prior" to the contact, now any conern for BR to "avoid" the contact?

IIRC-This game was played under protest from this point on as interference was called on the batter. I believe the call was reversed to obstruction by the umpires. The final ruling on the protest was that this was interference. Will see what I can find out and give more definate details.

According to the description it was a college game that was protested and reversed later. I wasn't thinking about the ceflection in my original answer and so I was incoorect with the interference call. Once it's deflected he looses his right to the baseline, it becomes the runner's. If the batted ball had taken him to that location then everything I said would have been correct.

As to the removing a helmet during live ball, it is warn and eject. Just remember it is during a live ball. There was a discussion on the HS board where an ump was trying to enforce it on a HR ball. This is a deadball situation and isn't illegal.