Rules Question

Discuss all things Cardinals Baseball
Post Reply
User avatar
Joe Shlabotnik
Hall Of Famer
Posts: 23105
Joined: October 12 06, 2:21 pm
Location: Baseball Ref Bullpen
Contact:

Re: Rules Question

Post by Joe Shlabotnik »

Freed Roger wrote:
May 27 21, 7:33 pm
The Baez Play makes me think how the ridiculous can happen.

Less than 2 outs. Guy hits would be Grand Slam. But Misses 1st base. Appealed, and out. what happens to other runners.

I suppose if the guy at 2nd misses 3rd on would-be Grand Slam homer and gets appeal out, then only one run counts. ?
Q1: Three runs score. If there were two out, NOBODY scores because a batter-runner to first is always a force out.
Q2. If less than 2 out, all other runners score. With two out, again, since the runner at second was forced to 3rd, the force out ends the inning with no runs scored.

In general, on a home run base-running appeal, any runners ahead of the appealed runner score unless the appealed base was a force out that ends the inning. In that case, nobody scores because of the force out.

AWvsCBsteeeerike3
"I could totally eat a pig butt, if smoked correctly!"
Posts: 27273
Joined: August 5 08, 11:24 am
Location: Thinking of the Children

Re: Rules Question

Post by AWvsCBsteeeerike3 »

@joe shlabotnik

If a batter hits a ball that hits off the pitcher and the SS initially breaks towards 2nd, and there is a runner on 2nd, and the SS reverses course into the basepath and collides with the runner that can not avoid him due to the course reversal, is that runner interference?

Here's the full breakdown:
SS is holding the runner somewhat close to 2nd pre-pitch
During the delivery he slides back and to the left
Ball is hit
SS breaks towards 2nd behind the runner/Runner from 2nd takes off for 3rd
Ball hits pitcher and deflects towards initial SS position but very slowly
SS cuts into the runner from 2nd causing a collision

No chance after the deflection there was going to be a play at 1st or 3rd if that even matters.

What's the ruling?

AWvsCBsteeeerike3
"I could totally eat a pig butt, if smoked correctly!"
Posts: 27273
Joined: August 5 08, 11:24 am
Location: Thinking of the Children

Re: Rules Question

Post by AWvsCBsteeeerike3 »

Also, should be noted, the same SS was grabbing runners shirts previously in the game, extending his arm into runners stealing 3rd, etc.

The umps didn't call interference, but htere was a lot of bellyaching from the coaches and crowd that it was not called.

User avatar
Joe Shlabotnik
Hall Of Famer
Posts: 23105
Joined: October 12 06, 2:21 pm
Location: Baseball Ref Bullpen
Contact:

Re: Rules Question

Post by Joe Shlabotnik »

AWvsCBsteeeerike3 wrote:
April 7 22, 11:59 am
@joe shlabotnik

If a batter hits a ball that hits off the pitcher and the SS initially breaks towards 2nd, and there is a runner on 2nd, and the SS reverses course into the basepath and collides with the runner that can not avoid him due to the course reversal, is that runner interference?

Here's the full breakdown:
SS is holding the runner somewhat close to 2nd pre-pitch
During the delivery he slides back and to the left
Ball is hit
SS breaks towards 2nd behind the runner/Runner from 2nd takes off for 3rd
Ball hits pitcher and deflects towards initial SS position but very slowly
SS cuts into the runner from 2nd causing a collision

No chance after the deflection there was going to be a play at 1st or 3rd if that even matters.

What's the ruling?
I believe this is the same across LL, HS, and OBR.

It depends on who the umpires believe to be the 'protected fielder'. There is only one fielder that can be protected from interference by a runner on a ball in play. I didn't see the play in question so I can't give you an opinion. Things I'd look for:

- Did the pitcher have a reasonable chance at fielding the ball that hit him? IOW, was the deflection an error on the pitcher's part? If so, I'd rule the pitcher as the protected fielder who missed his chance at the batted ball. So obstruction on the SS.

- If not E-1, than after the deflection who had the best chance to field the ball? You said it was rolling slowly toward the SS hole and there was no chance at runners at any base. Without seeing the play, I interpret that to mean the ball was closer to the pitcher than the SS. Again, obstruction on the SS.

- If the ball was sharply hit such that the pitcher had no reasonable chance to initially field it and then it deflected more than half way toward the SS, I could understand protecting the SS in this case. Interference on R2.


In the end, this is a judgement call. So whatever the umpire judged was 'correct'. Their reasoning, of course, might be faulty.

Rule 7.90(j) LL
Rule 8-4-2(g) NFHS
Rule 6.01(a)(10) OBR

What did you have?

User avatar
Joe Shlabotnik
Hall Of Famer
Posts: 23105
Joined: October 12 06, 2:21 pm
Location: Baseball Ref Bullpen
Contact:

Re: Rules Question

Post by Joe Shlabotnik »

AWvsCBsteeeerike3 wrote:
April 7 22, 12:07 pm
Also, should be noted, the same SS was grabbing runners shirts previously in the game, extending his arm into runners stealing 3rd, etc.

The umps didn't call interference, but htere was a lot of bellyaching from the coaches and crowd that it was not called.
If I'd seen any of that crap, I'd have called obstruction. In HS, if I thought there was intent to injure I'd also have malicious contact.

AWvsCBsteeeerike3
"I could totally eat a pig butt, if smoked correctly!"
Posts: 27273
Joined: August 5 08, 11:24 am
Location: Thinking of the Children

Re: Rules Question

Post by AWvsCBsteeeerike3 »

Joe Shlabotnik wrote:
April 7 22, 12:55 pm
AWvsCBsteeeerike3 wrote:
April 7 22, 11:59 am
@joe shlabotnik

If a batter hits a ball that hits off the pitcher and the SS initially breaks towards 2nd, and there is a runner on 2nd, and the SS reverses course into the basepath and collides with the runner that can not avoid him due to the course reversal, is that runner interference?

Here's the full breakdown:
SS is holding the runner somewhat close to 2nd pre-pitch
During the delivery he slides back and to the left
Ball is hit
SS breaks towards 2nd behind the runner/Runner from 2nd takes off for 3rd
Ball hits pitcher and deflects towards initial SS position but very slowly
SS cuts into the runner from 2nd causing a collision

No chance after the deflection there was going to be a play at 1st or 3rd if that even matters.

What's the ruling?
I believe this is the same across LL, HS, and OBR.

It depends on who the umpires believe to be the 'protected fielder'. There is only one fielder that can be protected from interference by a runner on a ball in play. I didn't see the play in question so I can't give you an opinion. Things I'd look for:

- Did the pitcher have a reasonable chance at fielding the ball that hit him? IOW, was the deflection an error on the pitcher's part? If so, I'd rule the pitcher as the protected fielder who missed his chance at the batted ball. So obstruction on the SS.

- If not E-1, than after the deflection who had the best chance to field the ball? You said it was rolling slowly toward the SS hole and there was no chance at runners at any base. Without seeing the play, I interpret that to mean the ball was closer to the pitcher than the SS. Again, obstruction on the SS.

- If the ball was sharply hit such that the pitcher had no reasonable chance to initially field it and then it deflected more than half way toward the SS, I could understand protecting the SS in this case. Interference on R2.


In the end, this is a judgement call. So whatever the umpire judged was 'correct'. Their reasoning, of course, might be faulty.

Rule 7.90(j) LL
Rule 8-4-2(g) NFHS
Rule 6.01(a)(10) OBR

What did you have?
Thank you!

So the ruling was incidental contact or simply no ruling was made.

I thought it was obstruction just because the SS was obstructing runners every chance he could and likely took this as a chance to try to get an interference call by intentionally colliding with the runner. And then holding him, but whatever.

Which brings up this question.

Let's take a routine softly hit groundball to 2B with a runner advancing from 1st to 2nd. Is the 2B allowed to time his fielding of the ball to cause a collision with the runner in order get an interference call? Say the 2B does a split step and stops right in the runners basepath, runner adjusts towards the infield to avoid a collision, and then the 2B runs towards the ball causing a collision. What's the call there?

Lastly, back to the original play I was talking about, does the deflection not nullify the interference call?

6.01 a 10:
(10) He fails to avoid a fielder who is attempting to field a batted ball, or intentionally interferes with a thrown ball, provided that if two or more fielders attempt to field a batted ball, and the runner comes in contact with one or more of them, the umpire shall determine which fielder is entitled to the benefit of this rule, and shall not declare the runner out for coming in contact with a fielder other than the one the umpire determines to be entitled to field such a ball.

After the deflection, regardless of rather or not the pitcher should have made the play, it's no longer a batted ball but just a live ball, no?

Similarly, if a batted ball deflects off a fielder and then hits a runner, the runner is not out, correct? Otherwise, a fielder could throw at a runner (like kickball) and get them out after a batter hits a ball because it would be a batted ball.

ETA: The pitcher made a play on the ball, he didn't get pegged by a comebacker. Rather or not he should have made the play is up to interpretation. It was officially ruled a hit. Keep in mind, the official scorer for the game is a player's dad tasked with keeping the official scorebook, not a trained scorekeeper :)

User avatar
Joe Shlabotnik
Hall Of Famer
Posts: 23105
Joined: October 12 06, 2:21 pm
Location: Baseball Ref Bullpen
Contact:

Re: Rules Question

Post by Joe Shlabotnik »

AWvsCBsteeeerike3 wrote:
April 7 22, 1:15 pm
Joe Shlabotnik wrote:
April 7 22, 12:55 pm
AWvsCBsteeeerike3 wrote:
April 7 22, 11:59 am
@joe shlabotnik

If a batter hits a ball that hits off the pitcher and the SS initially breaks towards 2nd, and there is a runner on 2nd, and the SS reverses course into the basepath and collides with the runner that can not avoid him due to the course reversal, is that runner interference?

Here's the full breakdown:
SS is holding the runner somewhat close to 2nd pre-pitch
During the delivery he slides back and to the left
Ball is hit
SS breaks towards 2nd behind the runner/Runner from 2nd takes off for 3rd
Ball hits pitcher and deflects towards initial SS position but very slowly
SS cuts into the runner from 2nd causing a collision

No chance after the deflection there was going to be a play at 1st or 3rd if that even matters.

What's the ruling?
I believe this is the same across LL, HS, and OBR.

It depends on who the umpires believe to be the 'protected fielder'. There is only one fielder that can be protected from interference by a runner on a ball in play. I didn't see the play in question so I can't give you an opinion. Things I'd look for:

- Did the pitcher have a reasonable chance at fielding the ball that hit him? IOW, was the deflection an error on the pitcher's part? If so, I'd rule the pitcher as the protected fielder who missed his chance at the batted ball. So obstruction on the SS.

- If not E-1, than after the deflection who had the best chance to field the ball? You said it was rolling slowly toward the SS hole and there was no chance at runners at any base. Without seeing the play, I interpret that to mean the ball was closer to the pitcher than the SS. Again, obstruction on the SS.

- If the ball was sharply hit such that the pitcher had no reasonable chance to initially field it and then it deflected more than half way toward the SS, I could understand protecting the SS in this case. Interference on R2.


In the end, this is a judgement call. So whatever the umpire judged was 'correct'. Their reasoning, of course, might be faulty.

Rule 7.90(j) LL
Rule 8-4-2(g) NFHS
Rule 6.01(a)(10) OBR

What did you have?
Thank you!

So the ruling was incidental contact or simply no ruling was made.

I thought it was obstruction just because the SS was obstructing runners every chance he could and likely took this as a chance to try to get an interference call by intentionally colliding with the runner. And then holding him, but whatever.

Which brings up this question.

Let's take a routine softly hit groundball to 2B with a runner advancing from 1st to 2nd. Is the 2B allowed to time his fielding of the ball to cause a collision with the runner in order get an interference call? Say the 2B does a split step and stops right in the runners basepath, runner adjusts towards the infield to avoid a collision, and then the 2B runs towards the ball causing a collision. What's the call there?
As they tell you when first teaching interference - the protection of the fielder is one of the few constants across all rule sets. A protected fielder MUST be avoided by a runner, full stop. Don't teach your runners to go in front. Either they stop or go around behind. Even if they go behind, they are liable for interference if the fielder backs up. I'd only change that to obstruction if it was obvious the fielder was giving up his attempt at fielding the ball to obstruct the runner.
AWvsCBsteeeerike3 wrote:
April 7 22, 1:15 pm
Lastly, back to the original play I was talking about, does the deflection not nullify the interference call?

6.01 a 10:
(10) He fails to avoid a fielder who is attempting to field a batted ball, or intentionally interferes with a thrown ball, provided that if two or more fielders attempt to field a batted ball, and the runner comes in contact with one or more of them, the umpire shall determine which fielder is entitled to the benefit of this rule, and shall not declare the runner out for coming in contact with a fielder other than the one the umpire determines to be entitled to field such a ball.

After the deflection, regardless of rather or not the pitcher should have made the play, it's no longer a batted ball but just a live ball, no?
The deflection nullifies the ability of the runner to interfere with the batted ball. It does nothing with regards to the protected fielder. The fielder is protected until they have possession of the ball and even into the act of throwing if both are done in one fluid motion.
AWvsCBsteeeerike3 wrote:
April 7 22, 1:15 pm
Similarly, if a batted ball deflects off a fielder and then hits a runner, the runner is not out, correct? Otherwise, a fielder could throw at a runner (like kickball) and get them out after a batter hits a ball because it would be a batted ball.
Exactly. A runner is out for interference with a batted ball only if they are the first player to be touched AND the ball has not passed the protected fielder. We saw that "passed the protected fielder" part a few years back with Yadi. But Yadi thought he was out and abandoned his effort! One of the very few brain farts I've seen Yadi commit rules-wise.

User avatar
CardsofSTL
All Hail the GDT Master
Posts: 47817
Joined: April 26 11, 6:06 am
Location: Columbus, OH

Re: Rules Question

Post by CardsofSTL »

Pretty interesting discussion on interference rules guys.

AWvsCBsteeeerike3
"I could totally eat a pig butt, if smoked correctly!"
Posts: 27273
Joined: August 5 08, 11:24 am
Location: Thinking of the Children

Re: Rules Question

Post by AWvsCBsteeeerike3 »

Joe Shlabotnik wrote:
April 7 22, 1:44 pm

As they tell you when first teaching interference - the protection of the fielder is one of the few constants across all rule sets. A protected fielder MUST be avoided by a runner, full stop. Don't teach your runners to go in front. Either they stop or go around behind. Even if they go behind, they are liable for interference if the fielder backs up. I'd only change that to obstruction if it was obvious the fielder was giving up his attempt at fielding the ball to obstruct the runner.
AWvsCBsteeeerike3 wrote:
April 7 22, 1:15 pm
Lastly, back to the original play I was talking about, does the deflection not nullify the interference call?

6.01 a 10:
(10) He fails to avoid a fielder who is attempting to field a batted ball, or intentionally interferes with a thrown ball, provided that if two or more fielders attempt to field a batted ball, and the runner comes in contact with one or more of them, the umpire shall determine which fielder is entitled to the benefit of this rule, and shall not declare the runner out for coming in contact with a fielder other than the one the umpire determines to be entitled to field such a ball.

After the deflection, regardless of rather or not the pitcher should have made the play, it's no longer a batted ball but just a live ball, no?
The deflection nullifies the ability of the runner to interfere with the batted ball. It does nothing with regards to the protected fielder. The fielder is protected until they have possession of the ball and even into the act of throwing if both are done in one fluid motion.
AWvsCBsteeeerike3 wrote:
April 7 22, 1:15 pm
Similarly, if a batted ball deflects off a fielder and then hits a runner, the runner is not out, correct? Otherwise, a fielder could throw at a runner (like kickball) and get them out after a batter hits a ball because it would be a batted ball.
Exactly. A runner is out for interference with a batted ball only if they are the first player to be touched AND the ball has not passed the protected fielder. We saw that "passed the protected fielder" part a few years back with Yadi. But Yadi thought he was out and abandoned his effort! One of the very few brain farts I've seen Yadi commit rules-wise.
Thanks, Joe.

I'm a little confused on who is protected in the basepath because I thought the runner was protected in the basepath unless specifically a fielder attempting to field a batted ball. The fielder is only protected with 100% absolute truth on a batted ball. Thrown balls are different, no?

Perhaps we've even gone over this in here.

But on a throw from RF to 3B the 3B can not block the bag completely, unless he has the ball or the act of fielding the ball pulls him directly into the baseline (ditto, home), correct? And, the runner can't just run into the fielder, there is protection for both.
Contact where the runner is in the basepath(and following apropos slide rules) and the fielder is making a play or has the ball results in incidental contact. As such, fielders making plays on thrown (RF-->3B) or live balls (SS trying to get to shallow IF) can block basepaths/impede runners (as defined by the runners position), but unless contact is intentionally made by the runner, no interference is called. And, no obstruction is called unless the fielder intentionally creates contact. It's just incidental contact.

I guess what I'm getting at is, yes in our situation the fielder is still protected but not with immunity since it's not a batted ball and the runner is protected in his basepath. If fielders retain the immunity they have on a batted ball so long as they're making a play on any thrown/live ball, as I think you're saying, what's to stop them from blocking 3B on a thrown ball?

User avatar
Joe Shlabotnik
Hall Of Famer
Posts: 23105
Joined: October 12 06, 2:21 pm
Location: Baseball Ref Bullpen
Contact:

Re: Rules Question

Post by Joe Shlabotnik »

AWvsCBsteeeerike3 wrote:
April 8 22, 7:57 am
Joe Shlabotnik wrote:
April 7 22, 1:44 pm

As they tell you when first teaching interference - the protection of the fielder is one of the few constants across all rule sets. A protected fielder MUST be avoided by a runner, full stop. Don't teach your runners to go in front. Either they stop or go around behind. Even if they go behind, they are liable for interference if the fielder backs up. I'd only change that to obstruction if it was obvious the fielder was giving up his attempt at fielding the ball to obstruct the runner.
AWvsCBsteeeerike3 wrote:
April 7 22, 1:15 pm
Lastly, back to the original play I was talking about, does the deflection not nullify the interference call?

6.01 a 10:
(10) He fails to avoid a fielder who is attempting to field a batted ball, or intentionally interferes with a thrown ball, provided that if two or more fielders attempt to field a batted ball, and the runner comes in contact with one or more of them, the umpire shall determine which fielder is entitled to the benefit of this rule, and shall not declare the runner out for coming in contact with a fielder other than the one the umpire determines to be entitled to field such a ball.

After the deflection, regardless of rather or not the pitcher should have made the play, it's no longer a batted ball but just a live ball, no?
The deflection nullifies the ability of the runner to interfere with the batted ball. It does nothing with regards to the protected fielder. The fielder is protected until they have possession of the ball and even into the act of throwing if both are done in one fluid motion.
AWvsCBsteeeerike3 wrote:
April 7 22, 1:15 pm
Similarly, if a batted ball deflects off a fielder and then hits a runner, the runner is not out, correct? Otherwise, a fielder could throw at a runner (like kickball) and get them out after a batter hits a ball because it would be a batted ball.
Exactly. A runner is out for interference with a batted ball only if they are the first player to be touched AND the ball has not passed the protected fielder. We saw that "passed the protected fielder" part a few years back with Yadi. But Yadi thought he was out and abandoned his effort! One of the very few brain farts I've seen Yadi commit rules-wise.
Thanks, Joe.

I'm a little confused on who is protected in the basepath because I thought the runner was protected in the basepath unless specifically a fielder attempting to field a batted ball. The fielder is only protected with 100% absolute truth on a batted ball. Thrown balls are different, no?

Perhaps we've even gone over this in here.

But on a throw from RF to 3B the 3B can not block the bag completely, unless he has the ball or the act of fielding the ball pulls him directly into the baseline (ditto, home), correct? And, the runner can't just run into the fielder, there is protection for both.
Contact where the runner is in the basepath(and following apropos slide rules) and the fielder is making a play or has the ball results in incidental contact. As such, fielders making plays on thrown (RF-->3B) or live balls (SS trying to get to shallow IF) can block basepaths/impede runners (as defined by the runners position), but unless contact is intentionally made by the runner, no interference is called. And, no obstruction is called unless the fielder intentionally creates contact. It's just incidental contact.

I guess what I'm getting at is, yes in our situation the fielder is still protected but not with immunity since it's not a batted ball and the runner is protected in his basepath. If fielders retain the immunity they have on a batted ball so long as they're making a play on any thrown/live ball, as I think you're saying, what's to stop them from blocking 3B on a thrown ball?
Because when they are receiving a thrown ball, they can't be the fielder protected from runner interference. Two different defenders by definition.

And for the purposes of the protection, a deflected ball is the same as a batted ball. One of the maddening inconsistencies that are all over the rules, IMO.

I hope you can appreciate how hard something like this is to get right on a consistent basis. In thinking about it, I could easily have the same no-call as your umpires. As field ump in position B or C, I could easily be distracted by the deflection and then not see the obstruction/interference. And then I can't call what I don't see. It takes a lot of experience to gain the presence of mind to see the deflection, know to ask yourself who is now protected and then watch that protected fielder for the interference. Literally has to be done in a second or two. On a play you'll see MAYBE a couple of times each season.

Post Reply