Incidental contact

I posted a similar question while back after a travel ball game, then sas similar in lsu and auburn game. Batter pop up bunt looks like going foul, batter towards first, first charging hard and looking up. They collide and ump puts batter back in box. Announcers say incidental. I see a thrown ball pulling a defender into runners path and ball,defender and runner arrive at the same time being incidental. Batted ball and collisions to me will always be obstruction or interference on someone. Is this correct?

Once more NCAA rules being completely different than every other rule set, but even then I don't agree with what some claim from the NCAA rule. Apparently there is a statement in the rule about the runner and the fielder both doing what they are suppose to do and it not being either interference or obstruction. Don't agree with those that point to this rule, if you want to claim that then almost nothing would be either. In every rule set it is the runners responsibility to avoid the defense attempting to make a play on a batted ball, otherwise it is interference. I have seen the play you are talking about but only quick clips of it. The only way you can rule nothing on the play is if you judge the ball was not catchable by the defender and the ball was foul.

Thanks comp, he may have ruled uncatchable. Like you I don't understand the runner and defender doing what their suppose to then no foul. Like you say unless on purpose OB or INTO will never be called.

Comp said:

Once more NCAA rules being completely different than every other rule set, but even then I don't agree with what some claim from the NCAA rule. Apparently there is a statement in the rule about the runner and the fielder both doing what they are suppose to do and it not being either interference or obstruction. Don't agree with those that point to this rule, if you want to claim that then almost nothing would be either. In every rule set it is the runners responsibility to avoid the defense attempting to make a play on a batted ball, otherwise it is interference. I have seen the play you are talking about but only quick clips of it. The only way you can rule nothing on the play is if you judge the ball was not catchable by the defender and the ball was foul.

Click to expand...

The ball was 100% catchable, but it was foul. I really think Andrews should have had to avoid contact, as she was watching the ball! How many times do we tell our young girls to never watch the ball after it is hit? She made contact with a fielder attempting to catch the ball and they collided right on the line . I suppose NCAA allows it to be "incidental" but I am pretty sure that if it had been at a USSSA or PGF game, it would have been ruled RI and the batter would have been out.

From what I have been told, NCAA directly addressed the video of this play and has released a statement it should have been ruled interference. They also released a statement about the obstruction call at home plate. While it was obstruction per the rule, the runner made contact with the catcher above the waist and by rule this is considered an attempt to dislodge the ball and is interference which supersedes obstruction.

Phathead said:

I posted a similar question while back after a travel ball game, then sas similar in lsu and auburn game. Batter pop up bunt looks like going foul, batter towards first, first charging hard and looking up. They collide and ump puts batter back in box. Announcers say incidental. I see a thrown ball pulling a defender into runners path and ball,defender and runner arrive at the same time being incidental. Batted ball and collisions to me will always be obstruction or interference on someone. Is this correct?

Click to expand...

This is the play in 1975 is what precipitated probably every baseball/softball organization to adopt wording about both players doing what they are supposed to do. It applies almost exclusively to an entanglement between the batter and catcher.

Comp said:

From what I have been told, NCAA directly addressed the video of this play and has released a statement it should have been ruled interference. They also released a statement about the obstruction call at home plate. While it was obstruction per the rule, the runner made contact with the catcher above the waist and by rule this is considered an attempt to dislodge the ball and is interference which supersedes obstruction.

Click to expand...

I felt while watching this particular series that the umps were def biased. I am usually an "umps are human, mistakes happen" kind of girl. But every once in a while you have to ask why in the world would they have made those calls if they were unbiased? Maybe not, maybe they are huge Auburn fans and genuinely made some mistakes. There were several other questionable calls, but just on routine plays and that happens. Auburn should have had at least one win in that series, and instead LSU got the sweep. They were some of the most exciting SEC games I have seen this year though!

But hey I get to witness it the other way last week in HS. We are batting, runner on first. Batter hits roller to second baseman. 2nd starts to charge pulls up to avoid collision with our runner. Ump calls her out. Here goes our coach arguing with ump. 2 things I distinctly hear are defense was in base line and when that failed , the good old there was no contact. Parent asks me how the rule worked I explain and she sorta gets it. Fun part was the butt kissing mom listening and frowning when I say ump got it right. So I just had to add that "it's a shame when school coach doesn't even know the rules, makes you wonder if they know anything about mechanics or fundamentals." Yes i have a distaste for HS coaching. Wish there were more from this forum coaching school ball.

Comp said:

From what I have been told, NCAA directly addressed the video of this play and has released a statement it should have been ruled interference. They also released a statement about the obstruction call at home plate. While it was obstruction per the rule, the runner made contact with the catcher above the waist and by rule this is considered an attempt to dislodge the ball and is interference which supersedes obstruction.

Click to expand...

This post is causing me considerable consternation. I seem to always know just enough about the rules to keep myself in trouble. How could there be obstruction if the catcher has the ball in hand to be dislodged? If the obstruction occurred prior to catcher receiving the ball then the obstruction happened first and so the runner should not be put out between the bases where the obstruction occurred. I'm not saying the post is wrong, I'm saying I don't like that the second infraction can negate the infraction that happened first. The interference should be irrelevant because of the obstruction.

KCPhoto said:

This post is causing me considerable consternation. I seem to always know just enough about the rules to keep myself in trouble. How could there be obstruction if the catcher has the ball in hand to be dislodged? If the obstruction occurred prior to catcher receiving the ball then the obstruction happened first and so the runner should not be put out between the bases where the obstruction occurred. I'm not saying the post is wrong, I'm saying I don't like that the second infraction can negate the infraction that happened first. The interference should be irrelevant because of the obstruction.

Click to expand...

First off, this was a college game and as I have said numerous times college rules have moved so far away from every rule set they should not even remotely be compared anymore. That being said, in EVERY rule set, an act of interference after obstruction ALWAYS negates the obstruction and takes precedence.

Now, many many moons ago NCAA used ASA rules but at some point the coaches decided they new better and started modifying rules. Each year the tweek something and at some point they changed the obstruction rule to allowing the defense to impede the runner if they were considered to be in the act of receiving the ball. That was as I recall at one point considered to be the ball within the infield. Then after complaints from coaches that was changed to the ball being closer to the fielder than the runner. After even more complaints the rule was changed to being in the immediate act of catching the ball, which was the ball actually entering the glove. Then after some of the obstruction calls vs non calls in the WCWS last year they decided to reword the rule again, and now it states more or less the defender cannot be in the runners path and block the base until the ball is in their possession. If they do not have the ball and are blocking the base it is to be ruled obstruction and the runner is to be called safe. To go along with this they also made the rule about contacting the defender above the waist and considered an attempt to dislodge the ball being interference, which as I have stated is interference and takes precedence over the obstruction.

Again, this is NCAA and DO NOT try to take anything from a college game and apply it to any other rule set. It would be a far shorter list anymore to list the rules that are the same than to list the rules that are different.