INT or OBS

[GIMNEPIWO]

I was not there, but these are the details as the were told to me :

Batted ball deflects of F1's leg and ricochets towards the first base line ... She runs after it and there is a collision between the BR and her at the moment she is fielding the ball ...

EDIT: REC game, but they follow ASA

[tcannizzo]

For INT, F1 had to have a "reasonable chance of making a play, (i.e retiring a runner or batter-runner)". With what little detail is provided, hard to say. But if the contact occurred at the time F1 was fielding the ball, then it sounds logical that if there was no contact/collision that F1 could have retired BR. Rule INT.

[MTR]

For INT, F1 had to have a "reasonable chance of making a play, (i.e retiring a runner or batter-runner)". With what little detail is provided, hard to say. But if the contact occurred at the time F1 was fielding the ball, then it sounds logical that if there was no contact/collision that F1 could have retired BR. Rule INT.

Actually, it must be deemed that the player has the opportunity to make an OUT, not just a play, AND the interference is intentional. (ASA 8.7.J.4)

[tcannizzo]

Thanks for the clarification.

Was originally just going with:
Rule 1 - Definitions - Interference. "The act of an offensive player..that impedes...a defensive player attempting to execute a play.
Combined with:
Rule 1 - Definitions - Play. An attempt by a defensive player to retire an offensive player...

Rule 8 - The Runner is Out .7.J.4, while specifically addressing a deflected batted ball, could turn this into an argument, because in the OP, it was the Batter-Runner. Rule 7 - The Batter-Runner is Out does not cover the deflected ball. Some may choose to pick a "ticky-tack" argument that you cannot apply Rule 8 on a Batter-Runner, based on editorial correctness.

But if we also consider:
RS 33 Interference.A.1 "A runner or batter-runner who interferes..."
and
RS 33.A.2 "A runner or batter-runner who is hit by a fair touched or untouched batted ball..."
we see a clear attempt to address this by lumping "runner and batter-runner" in the same sentences and would make even stronger argument in support with what you have written; and would allow me to confidently require intent in this case.

[GIMNEPIWO]

Okay ... when I prompted further details ... I was told that IF F1 was able to field the ball cleanly she would have had an out ... AND, if the ball was not fielded cleanly that the BR would have been safe ...

[vcblue]

Thanks for the clarification.

Was originally just going with:
Rule 1 - Definitions - Interference. "The act of an offensive player..that impedes...a defensive player attempting to execute a play.
Combined with:
Rule 1 - Definitions - Play. An attempt by a defensive player to retire an offensive player...

Rule 8 - The Runner is Out .7.J.4, while specifically addressing a deflected batted ball, could turn this into an argument, because in the OP, it was the Batter-Runner. Rule 7 - The Batter-Runner is Out does not cover the deflected ball. Some may choose to pick a "ticky-tack" argument that you cannot apply Rule 8 on a Batter-Runner, based on editorial correctness.

But if we also consider:
RS 33 Interference.A.1 "A runner or batter-runner who interferes..."
and
RS 33.A.2 "A runner or batter-runner who is hit by a fair touched or untouched batted ball..."
we see a clear attempt to address this by lumping "runner and batter-runner" in the same sentences and would make even stronger argument in support with what you have written; and would allow me to confidently require intent in this case.

Sorry but all rules that apply to a runner also apply to a B/R. ASA 8.2 are just rules specifically direct towards the B/R.

[MTR]

Okay ... when I prompted further details ... I was told that IF F1 was able to field the ball cleanly she would have had an out ... AND, if the ball was not fielded cleanly that the BR would have been safe ...

Still has to be deemed intentional on behalf of the offense and that is a very weak over-simplification since if it was INT, there probably is no way for F1 to field the ball cleanly.

[GIMNEPIWO]

Okay ... when I prompted further details ... I was told that IF F1 was able to field the ball cleanly she would have had an out ... AND, if the ball was not fielded cleanly that the BR would have been safe ...

Still has to be deemed intentional on behalf of the offense and that is a very weak over-simplification since if it was INT, there probably is no way for F1 to field the ball cleanly.

I meant 'field the ball cleanly' after the deflection ... The way it was described is that the contact ( HTBT ) was simultanious ... and it was also described as that there was NO INTENT on F1 or BR ...

[MTR]

I meant 'field the ball cleanly' after the deflection ...

Okay, even though that would preclude any question of INT.

The way it was described is that the contact ( HTBT ) was simultanious ...

Okay, this is basically irrelevant

and it was also described as that there was NO INTENT on F1 or BR ...

Okay, first I've seen anything noted concerning intent on anyone's behalf which is pretty much why I raised that requirement for INT on a deflected batted ball.

[GIMNEPIWO]

I meant 'field the ball cleanly' after the deflection ...

Okay, even though that would preclude any question of INT.

The way it was described is that the contact ( HTBT ) was simultanious ...

Okay, this is basically irrelevant

and it was also described as that there was NO INTENT on F1 or BR ...

Okay, first I've seen anything noted concerning intent on anyone's behalf which is pretty much why I raised that requirement for INT on a deflected batted ball.

I guess I'm not clear on the deflection of a batted ball off of the pitchers body ( That is considered the initial play ? ) ... please splain and site rule if you could ... Thanks in advance ... BTW, The Blues at the field did rule OBS ...