The Play that Started the Florida State/Florida Ruckus Last Night

My opinion, that I have also made on other sites:

 

It was the wrong call, NCAA rule-wise. I feel it was INT, with a debate on whether we can eject on this (the flagrant contact rule specifies a fielder with clear possession, which gives me a bad taste.)

 

The runner's lane is irrelevant, because this is not a throw to first.

 

The rest of what you said is pretty accurate--the AR specifically states that a fielder is still protected if the ball is within a step and a reach of his initial attempt. There is a part of the AR that also says he must be attempting to field the ball; there are some that are arguing that because he attempted a tag, he was not attempting to field the ball (I am not of that opinion.)

 

Now for FED: It's pretty simple. I feel the runner initiated contact maliciously, which, by definition, is INT. Out and ejected. If we want to say it wasn't malicious, FED has a nearly (if not) identical take on protecting the fielder on a misplay, which would still have this being INT.

The runner never touch 1b. He step over.

 

Bob

He touched it with his left foot.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVagJcFddGo

I would probably have nothing on the play as well. The fielder and a clean attempt to make the play and did not make it before contact was made. Since he didn't have the ball, therefore not making a play on the runner, or making a throw, the running lane rule doesn't apply here.

Even if he didn't touch the base you rule safe and it must be appealed.

I was taught that after the misplay the fielder must be continuing to try to play the ball to be protected. I see a swipe at the ball and a tag attempt. I still have nothing besides maybe a MC on the BR but that might be pushing it.

It's a batted ball. If no one has the ball and there's contact, there's something.

 

2-50 A.R. 3 - If a fielder has a chance to field a batted ball, but misplays it and while attempting to recover it, the ball is in the fielder's immediate reach and the fielder is contacted by the base runner attempting to reach a base, interference shall be called.

But Matt... the fielder isn't trying to recover the ball... so then I have obstruction.

Here's the rub.

 

If you say that in that split second, he's not recovering the ball, you've just made a situation where a runner can intentionally deprive him of the opportunity to recover it. I'll link to another place, so you can see some of the discussion regarding this:

http://umpire-empire.com/index...1st-base-line/page-2

The wording of 2-50 AR 3 lends me to believe that all three of those criteria need to be taking place for the fielder to continue to be protected on the play. Watching it at full speed I don't see that to be the case.
I'm sure this play will be brought up in the video this off season,  if not sooner.

Sometimes, we look elsewhere.

 

2-54 A.R. 3—After a fielder has misplayed a batted ball and the ball is “within a step and a reach” the fielder is still considered “in the act.”

Is there no provision for a fielder not attempting to retrieve the ball that is within a step and making another action? Im not versed on the NCAA rules.

I only go by what I see full speed, no replays. I see F1 boot the ball, but think he has it and attempt a tag. The ball remaining at his feet seems irrelevant at this juncture since he obviously thinks he is in possession of the ball.

But back to what the OP is asking here. If we are calling a FED game... BR is out and ejected on a MC call and I believe we are out of players since any player leaving the bench area or their fielding position to participate in a fight is also ejected.

If we're in FED, I've got a lot of paperwork, and a referral to the state for a double-forfeit.

 

The NCAA has been clear by what it hasn't said--in a couple high-profile bench-clearing skirmishes (Indiana-Purdue and this one,) they haven't mentioned the lack of ejections for those that come off the bench and don't throw punches or kick. That tells me that the fight rule (5-16) is for actual fighting actions. So, I'd probably have two ejections here, maybe up to four. I haven't broken down the post-play pleasantries yet.

 

As for your question, both FED and OBR have this as unequivocally INT, and that the fielder is protected during the initial play, any misplay that stays in the immediate reach, and any immediate subsequent play. NCAA is the only one that has the ambiguity here, but I think they would fall in line--that is, don't read too much into the clause about "attempting to field."

There is no such provision because none is needed.  If the (batted) ball is within a step and a reach of the fielder, he is, by definition, in the act of fielding it.  He might not even know where the ball is (like if it was right underneath him and he was frantically trying to find it), but he is still protected.

 

This play is (rather obvious) interference in all rules codes..

 

This is interference. Go back to the beginning of the video and watch the runner. He intentionally took two step out of the runners lane in order to break up the play. In other words, he intentionally altered his path to interfere with the fielder.

 

There were four players  ejected after this. Contrary to what the article says, each one will receive a four game suspension plus the ejection, if it is the first time for each player.

Look again. he miss the bag. where is the baseball? The 2B and umpire should

be watching.

 

Bob

 

No, he didn't miss the bag, Bob. It's very clear in the video I posted that his left foot came down on it.

So, I am not an umpire, but malicious contact and an ejection?  I can see he definitely went out of his way to interfere, but I don't think he was trying to maliciously contact the fielder.  If he was he could have easily ran him right over.  

 

He went out of his way (as you said,) initiated contact above the waist, and it was not an attempt to reach the base.

 

This is very easily MC in FED, and the only reason it would not be flagrant contact in NCAA is because of the loophole in 8-7 regarding the fielder. I think they'll close that very quickly.

I e-mailed Jim Paronto about this.  He said it will be on the agenda this summer.