Heres the situation- bases loaded, 1 out, batter hits hard ground ball to third. Ball glances off mitt and ricochetes towards ss. runner from second readjusts and jumps over ball now right in front of ss. Ss readjusts but cant react to ball because of runner and there is no contact made by runner with ball nor runner with defensive player. Umpire calls dead ball calling runner interfarence because he feels runner hindered deflected ball to ss. he becomes out, no runs score. I felt
Replies sorted oldest to newest
...(continued) that because ball became deflected that runner interfarence is now out of play similar to if runner had actually colided with ss because third already had a fair chance to field ball as per rule 7.09 (l)
If the runner did not do anything intentional to hinder F6, then this is nothing. Once a ball has been deflected, there must be intent to interfere. If the ball hadn't been deflected but merely passed by F5, then this would be interference.
It is possible for protection to be re-established to another fielder after a batted ball has been deflected, but it doesn't sound like that was the case in your situation. The runner must have the time to get out of the way. I have nothing - play on. BTW: a call of "Dead Ball!" is never appropriate.
...(continued) that because ball became deflected that runner interfarence is now out of play similar to if runner had actually colided with ss because third already had a fair chance to field ball as per rule 7.09 (l)
The runner cant be out for being hit by a deflected ball without intent but he can still interfere ("fails to avoid") with a fielder who has a play on a deflected ball. Its the difference between 7.09j and k -- the last one contains "before touching a fielder" the first one does not.
So your (probably) right that interference shouldn't have been called in your play, but you cant neccesarily extend it to a play where the runner contacts the fielder.
You seem to be lumping two types of interference into one...interference with a batted ball and interference with a fielder's opportunity to field the ball. Neither, however seem to be appropriate as you describe the play.
You seem to be lumping two types of interference into one...interference with a batted ball and interference with a fielder's opportunity to field the ball. Neither, however seem to be appropriate as you describe the play.
You seem to be lumping two types of interference into one...interference with a batted ball and interference with a fielder's opportunity to field the ball. Neither, however seem to be appropriate as you describe the play.
As the play was presented, I have nothing.
The principles of this discussion come into play here, on Brown's RBI.
http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/gameday...?content_id=28714989
While MLBUM does say that protection on a deflected ball can be transferred to another fielder, there are word-of-mouth interps from that level that indicate a relaxing of the runner's obligations. Per written interp, this video should be INT. Per those verbal interps, this was a good no-call.
The principles of this discussion come into play here, on Brown's RBI.
http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/gameday...?content_id=28714989
While MLBUM does say that protection on a deflected ball can be transferred to another fielder, there are word-of-mouth interps from that level that indicate a relaxing of the runner's obligations. Per written interp, this video should be INT. Per those verbal interps, this was a good no-call.
This was a good no call at the MLB level because the batter/runner did not interfere with F3. If F3 would have made a better attempt at the ball then it probably would have resulted in interference.
