Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ggk
thanks for the insight.
can someone cite the applicable rule in FED, NCAA and OBR ?
while I am on board with Dave's interpretation, I am having a tough time convincing any of my recent partners that this is the correct ruling. they all seem to want to use a very liberal use of the idea of the ball "passing" a fielder and no one else having a chance to make a play. in their minds the ball could be 10- 20 ft to the right of the 1st baseman and if the 2nd baseman cannot make a play (ie. he is covering 2nd on an attempted steal) the runner is not out if he is hit.
thanks.
|
You've already cited the relevant rules from the OBR. Here is a blurb from the MLB Umpire Manual that supports the interpretation I posted previously:
...if a batted ball goes through or by an infielder (other than the pitcher) without touching the fielder and then strikes a runner immediately behind the infielder, the umpire must then determine if another infielder has a chance to make a play on the ball. If the umpire determines another infielder does have a chance, the runner is out. If the umpire determines another infielder does not have a chance, the ball is alive and in play.
The interpretation to be made with regard to the phrase "a fair ball goes through, or by, an infielder, and touches a runner immediately back of him" (Official Baseball Rules 7.09(m) and 5.09(f)) is that this refers to a ball that passes through the infielder's legs, or by his immediate vicinity, and strikes a runner directly behind the infielder.
This passage is followed by a number of plays and rulings to illustrate the interpretation. The plays clearly refute the idea that "through or by" refers to the distance the fielder is from home plate, compared to the distance the runner is, also known in the past, at least on the Internet, as "the string theory." The MLB Umpire Manual plays very unambiguously support the Evans definition of "through or by" to mean through the legs of or within the immediate reach.
I've not done extensive research on comparable NCAA or FED rulings, but my recollection in discussing this issue in the past is that NCAA is parallel to the pro interpretation, and FED is ambiguous, as there is (or was at some point) a FED caseplay that seemed to endorse the "string theory" definition of "through or by."