Skip to main content

There was a controversial play that occurred in the 8th inning that I've never seen come up in all my years of watching baseball, and I thought I'd get you guys opinions on what should have been called.

Catawba was down 6-5 in the 8th inning with a man on 2nd and 1 out. The batter hit a pop fly straight up out in front of the plate, down the 1st base line. It was going to land right on the 1st base line, about 30-35 feet from home plate.

WHen the batter hit it, he hesititated slightly because he thought he had fouled it out of play. By the time he noticed it was straight up and took off to run, the catcher had already popped up and started moving towards the ball. It was a popfly that probably could have been caught by any of the catcher, the pitcher, or the first baseman.

So the hitter takes off, but he's about 2-3 steps behind the catcher. At first, the catcher is calling for the ball and he was going to be able to settle under it somewhat easily to attempt to make the catch. He was standing right in the baseline.

So the batter sees that the catcher is in the baseline, and, as he SHOULD have done, he avoids the fielder because you can't bowl over a fielder that's making a play on the ball - even if he's in the baseline. I know that much. So the baserunner avoids the catcher and goes around him.

Problem was, as soon as the runner did this...the 1st baseman comes charging in from out of nowhere and calls off the catcher at the last minute. Again, makes sense because he has a much easier play on the ball coming in on it and not having a catchers mitt.

As the first baseman calls the ball and the catcher moves out of the way, the first baseman COLLIDES with the baserunner who was previously getting out of the catcher's way to allow him to catch it. The first baseman got absolutely clotheslined.

The ball landed fair and hit the first baseman, who was laid out and laying in fair territory. The Catawba runner on 2nd advanced to 3rd during all the commotion, and the batter made his way to first base safely.

The home plate umpire signaled fair, fair, fair.

The other team's manager came out to argue, and after a lengthy argument the home plate ump called all the umps in for a conference. After a long talk, they called Catawba's coach out there to talk to him and apparently explained why they were going to overturn the call. They overturned it and the batter was ruled out, with the baserunner sent back to 2nd since it was ruled a dead ball.

My initial thought when watching the play was that it should have been an out, BUT the catcher's involvement in the play makes it very dicey to me. The baserunner made his absolute best effort to allow the fielding team an opportunity to catch the ball. He did that by avoiding the catcher that was in the middle of the basepath, as he should have. If the catcher wasn't involved in the play and he simply bowled over a charging first baseman that was trying to make the play, it would have been an obvious out.
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

I'll let the umpires give you an official rule and call, but here's my understanding:

In that situation the umpires have to decide which fielder to "protect." That individual is going to be the one that they believe has the best chance of catching the ball. But I believe they can only "protect" one of them?

Now I think an important question to ask IF my understanding is correct.. at what point must the umpire decide who to "protect?"
quote:
Originally posted by Bulldog 19:
I'll let the umpires give you an official rule and call, but here's my understanding:

In that situation the umpires have to decide which fielder to "protect." That individual is going to be the one that they believe has the best chance of catching the ball. But I believe they can only "protect" one of them?

Now I think an important question to ask IF my understanding is correct.. at what point must the umpire decide who to "protect?"


They can protect only one...at a time. The player protected can change. Sounds like they got it right. Too bad it took a conference.
What Jimmy says is correct, you can change who you protect but you can still only protect one, here it sounds like they protected two. Unfortunately in Fed they have a delayed dead obstruction rule so that allows the interference to happen. Technically, if they protect the F3 then the catcher did obstruct him, and if he hadn't maybe the BR gets by the fielder before the ball gets there. However, since you have two calls in the same play, they conferenced to sort it out.
Last year we had a similar play, I was simply observing the game. Ball goes up on the line, catcher and pitcher go for it. F3 started to come in but retreated to first. The ball was infoul but drifted back toward the line. F2 called the F1 off, he stops on the line. The problem was the F2 misjudged the ball and had to make a last second lunge. He missed it, the ball landed fair a foot from F1. The problem was the BR and F1 had contact so he was unable to make the play. The PU protected the catcher and called obstruction on the pitcher. I would have called it the same.
The manager came out to question what happened. The PU explained his correct ruling, but horribly, leading to a very unhappy manager. I believe if he had done a better job of explaining he would have still disagreed but not had the anger toward the umpire.
Tough call, glad I didn't have to make it. Sounds to me as if they got it right, in the end. Hope 1B recovers...FWIW, that ball 35ft up the line ought to have been 1B's ball from the beginning.

OK, umpires: what would you have done if the ball had NOT hit first baseman in fair terriotry...say it landed fair, then spun off (without being touched) into foul ground?
quote:
Originally posted by DECK:
Tough call, glad I didn't have to make it. Sounds to me as if they got it right, in the end. Hope 1B recovers...FWIW, that ball 35ft up the line ought to have been 1B's ball from the beginning.

OK, umpires: what would you have done if the ball had NOT hit first baseman in fair terriotry...say it landed fair, then spun off (without being touched) into foul ground?


If there is any chance for a play by F3, then it's interference, regardless of where the ball ends up. If you are saying to look at the OP and simply remove the touching, it's still interference--the contact prevented him from fielding the ball.

Keep in mind, on interference by a runner with a fielder fielding a thrown ball, the play is killed immediately (except when, for some reason, it is called retroactively, as in the OP.) What happens to the ball after the interference is irrelevant.

Add Reply

Post
.
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×