Touched Twice and Then....

[tghorley]

Ok, this took place in a tournament game, NSA. Batter hits line shot back to pitcher. Pitcher gets her glove on the ball and knocks it toward the SS. SS misplays the ball and knocks it toward the runner who was going from 2nd to 3rd. Naturally, runner bumps into SS who is trying to retrieve the ball. BU immediately calls the runner out. After pleading his case, the coach finally has had enough and files a protest (which cost $100). The UIC backs up the BU. The game continues but the coach ask to be shown the rule in the rule book after the game. UIC could not find it in the rule book and explained that it was a judgement call by the BU. Huh? He did refund the $100.

I know most of you are not familiar with NSA rule sets, but how would this be ruled in other sets.

 

[MTR]

Ok, this took place in a tournament game, NSA. Batter hits line shot back to pitcher. Pitcher gets her glove on the ball and knocks it toward the SS. SS misplays the ball and knocks it toward the runner who was going from 2nd to 3rd. Naturally, runner bumps into SS who is trying to retrieve the ball. BU immediately calls the runner out. After pleading his case, the coach finally has had enough and files a protest (which cost $100). The UIC backs up the BU. The game continues but the coach ask to be shown the rule in the rule book after the game. UIC could not find it in the rule book and explained that it was a judgement call by the BU. Huh? He did refund the $100.

I know most of you are not familiar with NSA rule sets, but how would this be ruled in other sets.

Speaking ASA

It would be INT if, in the umpire's judgment, the runner could have avoided the fielder attempting to field the deflected ball. IOW, it must pretty much be intentional.

 

[Comp]

FED has initial play wording and step and a reach protection. Even if the ball has been deflected by the pitcher, another infielder is still considered to have the initial play on the ball. Even if they muff the play, if the ball is still within a step and a reach that fielder is still protected while trying to field it. However, as with ASA, if the fielder deflects the ball into the path of the runner and the runner could not avoid contact it must pretty much be intentional.

 

[Cannonball]

Speaking ASA

It would be INT if, in the umpire's judgment, the runner could have avoided the fielder attempting to field the deflected ball. IOW, it must pretty much be intentional.

My thoughts exactly!

 

[BretMan]

I am familiar with NSA, as they have a fairly large presence in my area and I have worked for them the past few years.

Unlike ASA and NFHS, the NSA rule book does not specifically cover a play where a fielder is trying to get control of a deflected batted ball. Neither does their case book.

Forced to make a ruling, I guess that the umpire has to default to their rule about a fielder in the act of fielding a batted ball. I would further assume that the umpire has to make a judgement on whether the second fielder actually had a chance to field the ball- that is, if the ball was in some reasonable proximity to the fielder where it could have indeed been fielded by her.

I hate making rulings based on assumptions. Too bad that NSA doesn't offer a clear ruling on a play like this, as do ASA and NFHS. On a personal note, between those latter two I prefer the ASA rule. All three of them protect the runner from an interference call if hit by a deflected ball, the premise being that a runner can't possibly predict what direction the ball might take after it's been deflected and may not be able to avoid a ball that suddenly and unexpectedly is in her path. The defense screwed up, so we cut the runner some slack.

Of the three, only ASA extends that same protection to a possible interference with a fielder. They seem to acknowledge that, on a deflected ball, not only will the ball take an unpredictable path, but so might a fielder who suddenly changes course to go after it.

 

[tghorley]

Thanks everyone for your great answers. But my key point was that the ss booted the ball toward the runner after the ball deflected off the pitcher and the runner did not intentionally run into the ss, it was bang, bang. The coach asked the umpire to explain the rule and he said because he said so (With BretMan's answer we know why). It went down hill from there as the BU was very unprofessional. He was still very rude even after the game and the UIC told him to get off the field.

 

[leechristensen]

even though the ss booted the ball on the initial play the balls still live and she still has a play to make..especially if the runner was that close to her that she could not avoid contact..so imo the umpire made the right call