Quote:
|
Originally Posted by BigUmp56
I understand what you're saying, and here's a play from the J/R that somewhat supports your position.
R3 and R1, first baseman is playing "in" (several feet in front of R1, who is leading off). The batter hits a hard grounder to the first baseman's right. He cannot touch it and it strikes R1. The second baseman had no chance of fielding the ball: no interference The ball is live.
I think the key in the eofficials answer verses the Roder ruling is all in how we envision the play. The Roder ruling mentions that the priveledged fielder cannot touch it. The eofficials ruling must have the fielder still being able to reach the ball although it says he cannot make the play.
Then this is what's found in the MLBUM.
(9) Runner on first base, first baseman positioned in front of the runner. Batter hits a ground ball just outside the reach of the first baseman as the first baseman dives to his right. The ball then strikes the runner.
Ruling: In this play the ball is considered having passed by an infielder. The umpire must now judge if another infielder has the chance to make a play on the ball. If the umpire judges yes, then the runner is declared out. If the umpire judges no, the ball is alive and in play.
Tim.
|
If you ask Rick Roder how he would rule today on the play you quoted from the Jaksa/Roder manual, he would tell you the runner is out, by professional interpretation.
There is a tremendous amount of history behind this particular interpretation, and I unfortunately do not have the time to detail it right now. The short story is, the "string theory" which Jaksa/Roder orginally supported was the interpretation which came from Nick Bremigan when he was chief instructor for the Brinkman-Froemming (or perhaps it's predecessor) umpire school. Meanwhile, the Evans school was teaching its umpires the alternate, and conflicting interpretation, of "through the legs of or within the immediate reach," a more restrictive interpretation that makes a runner hit by a batted ball out 98 times out of 100.
The Evans interpretation is the interpretation that became prevalent throughout professional baseball, and Rick Roder confirmed this fact by his own poll of active MLB umpires a couple of years ago. He said at the time that he would make the appropriate modification in the next edition of his book. I don't know if he did or not.
When I get home (I'm travelling at the moment) I'll look in my email archives and see if I can find specific quotes, citations, etc.
The poster who is adamantly opposing this ruling speculates that if you call a runner on 2B out when he is hit by a batted ball and the infield is playing in, you better get your ejection finger ready. In truth, the coaches, players and fans to a very, very high degree, all believe in the simple rule that when a runner is hit by a batted ball, he is out. By the Evans interpretation, this is true 99% of the time. I would submit that you would be more likely to have a tension convention if you do NOT kill the ball and call the runner out in that, and most every similar situation.