What should be the ruling?

The other way it could have been ruled, and what I would have argued if I was the defensive coach, was that since the 1st fielder did not have a "reasonable" attempt to field the ball, like in Windmill's response, then the SS should still have the opportunity to field it.

We had a play this year in our game with Ole Miss. We were on ESPNU that day so some of you may have seen it. Runner at 1, batter hits a chopper left of the pitcher somewhat between 1st and 2nd. Both the 1st baseman and the 2nd baseman go for the ball. 1st baseman fields it cleanly, then R1 plows over the 2nd baseman.

Ruling was - delayed dead ball obstruction on the 2nd baseman, R1 awarded 2nd and the batter credited with a fielder's choice.

Reasoning - and it is correct - that since the 1st baseman fielded the ball, the umpire can only protect 1 fielder, in this case the 1st baseman with the ball. Therefore, the 2nd baseman is unprotected and thus caused the interference. Tough call because we argued that what if the 1st baseman had missed the ball. But the ruling of a delayed dead ball was correct.

 

Thanks coach... another point of view...

 

other way

cheeze, just for the long shot, I was going to say "obstruction was called on the fielder for being in the most direct path to the base while not either in possesion of or waiting to receive the ball. runner was awarded 3rd".

If it was my game, that is what I would have gotten called probably.

Ty

 

...very good treckiepal! I like your post. Like when a runner comes to the plate the catcher can't "block" her without the ball or a real attempt catching the ball to make a play for an out.

I love TBR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Fishman