Runner Hit By Batted Ball

[DFM7]

OBR rules. Runner on first being held by the first baseman. BR hits a ground ball that hits R1. My partner (BU), a first year umpire, allows the the ball to remain live stating that because the runner was behind the first baseman and the second baseman would have had no play. The offensive coach was relatively calm but said he had never seen this called in 35 years of coaching. After the game I told my partner that I thought that he was technically correct but I would not make this call unless the infield was in. Any thoughts?

[Gee]

To keep the ball live in this situation the ball must have PASSED a fielder and no other fielders had a chance to make the play.

The word 'PASSED' is interpreted to mean that the infielder it went past had a reasonable chance to make the play usually regarded as a step and a reach away from the ball that went by him.

In your play it appears no fielder had a chance to make the play before it hit R1, therefore R1 should be called out for interference.

The intent of the rule is to allow the defense to touch the ball before the offense. I have that ballprotected all the way to the fence. G.

[Edited by Gee on Jun 25th, 2004 at 07:42 AM]

[Kaliix]

If the ball is past the first baseman and the second baseman had no chance at the ball, why would it be interference.

It would appear to me that both parts of the rule are satisfied for there not to be interference. The ball is through or by a fielder and no other infielder has a chance to make a play on the ball?

What does it matter whether any fielder had a chance at the ball as long as the ball is through or by a fielder with no other being able to play the ball, assuming that the runner did not intentionally let the ball hit him.

[DG]

I imagine that in the early days of baseball there was a problem with runners kicking ground balls to keep fielders from fielding them, so they invented the interference rule. To make it clear enough they made the rule so that it did not have to be intentional, but just getting hit by the ball when a fielder had a chance at it resulted in a penalty. They also made it not interference if it was first touched by a fielder and then touches the batter, because at least a fielder had a chance at it. Now if the 1B man is holding the runner and the ball goes by him and hits the batter, he had his chance and the RF has no chance at fielding a ground ball and throwing out anyone at 2B or 1B so your ruling protecting this ball all the way to the fence defies logic.

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by DG
Now if the 1B man is holding the runner and the ball goes by him and hits the batter, he had his chance and the RF has no chance at fielding a ground ball and throwing out anyone at 2B or 1B so your ruling protecting this ball all the way to the fence defies logic.

I think, DG, that you are responding to Gee (if you'd quote a little of the relevant post, it would help).

Assuming that's true, you and he are discussing different plays. Gee assumed that F3 had no play on the ball (that is, it didn't go "through or immediately by" him). So, as he stated, R1 is out.

In your play, F3 did have a chance. In this instance, R1 is not out.

(Both plays assume no other fielder has a play.)

[nine01c]

OBR 7.08m says the runner has not interferred if the ball hits him immediately in back of the fielder (after ball goes through or by that fielder), and no other fielder has a chance to play the ball. So, it would depend on where the runner was when he was hit by the ball (and if the fielders had a chance to play it).

Generally, if the ball hits the runner after passing through a fielder, the runner would have to be immediately behind the fielder, thus the ball would remain LIVE.

[DG]

Originally posted by bob jenkins

I think, DG, that you are responding to Gee (if you'd quote a little of the relevant post, it would help).

Assuming that's true, you and he are discussing different plays. Gee assumed that F3 had no play on the ball (that is, it didn't go "through or immediately by" him). So, as he stated, R1 is out.

In your play, F3 did have a chance. In this instance, R1 is not out.

(Both plays assume no other fielder has a play.)

I was responding to gee and I inadvertenty used the word batter when I meant runner. Play - 1B man is holding runner on at 1B, ball is hit past 1B man and hits runner beyond 1B man. Gee had that ball protected all the way to the fence, ie runner is out, and batter gets 1B. I disagree. 1B had his chance and the ball is by him and hits runner beyond him and not other fielder had a play. I don't count RFielder as having a play becuase all he can do is get the ball back to the infield on a base hit, if hit had not hit the runner. I say the ball is live, just like it would be if the 1B man had not been holding the runner, and it went between his legs and hit a runner behind him.

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by DG
Play - 1B man is holding runner on at 1B, ball is hit past 1B man

Define "past."

If you mean "through or immediately by" then your ruling is correct -- R1 had a "reasonable assumption" that F3 would make a play, so isn't penalized when hit by the ball -- he had no reasonable cahnce to avoid the ball (iow, it's the same as if the ball were deflected).

If you mean (only) "farther from home plate", then your ruling is wrong -- R1 is still expected to avoid the batted ball.

[DFM7]

In my original post I stated that r1 was behind f3. What I should have said is r1 was farther from the plate than f3 but not directly behind (two or three steps beyond f3).

[akalsey]

If you drew a line from the plate through F3, would R1 be on it?

[DFM7]

Originally posted by akalsey
If you drew a line from the plate through F3, would R1 be on it?

No.

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by DFM7
In my original post I stated that r1 was behind f3. What I should have said is r1 was farther from the plate than f3 but not directly behind (two or three steps beyond f3).

The "two or three steps" is umpire judgment. That said, I'd *probably* have an out here.

[Kaliix]

I see what you guys are saying. What I don't understand is what does it matter where in relation the ball is to the fielder, as long as it's by him and the runner doesn't "let" himself be hit (read intentionally). (and no other fielder has a chance on the ball

I see it as infielders and outfielders. If the ball is by the infield (read no infielder has a play), the runner shouldn't be penalized if the batter smokes a liner in the hole right at him, when the ball is clearly headed to the outfield. You know what I mean?

[Rich]

No. That ball could end up in the bullpen and the runners could run around the bases.

The only protection given is in situations where the runner cannot be expected to avoid the ball. The rest? Get out of the way.

--Rich

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by Kaliix
I see what you guys are saying. What I don't understand is what does it matter where in relation the ball is to the fielder, as long as it's by him and the runner doesn't "let" himself be hit (read intentionally). (and no other fielder has a chance on the ball

I see it as infielders and outfielders. If the ball is by the infield (read no infielder has a play), the runner shouldn't be penalized if the batter smokes a liner in the hole right at him, when the ball is clearly headed to the outfield. You know what I mean?

Rule: The runner is out when hit by a fair batted ball in fair territory. (Call this rule 1)

Counterpoint: What if the fielder deflects the ball? The runner can't be expected to avoid that.

Rule: (Rule 1) + except if the ball is deflected. (== Rule 2)

Counterpoint: What if the fielder should have made the play, but the ball goes right through his legs? If the runner is right behind the fielder, the runner can't be expected to avoid the ball.

Rule: (Rule 2) + and except if the ball goes through or by an infielder (== Rule 3)

Counterpoint: What if another fielder could have made a play? The defense shouldn't be penalized for this.

Rule: (Rule 3) + unless another infielder has a play.

This equals the current rule (yeah -- I know it's not complete, but I think it will suffice for this discussion).

There is an interpretation of the rule known as "the string theory" -- connect the infielders with an imaginary string. IF the ball crosses the string, the runner is not out when hit by the batted ball. That seems to be your and DG's interpretation. It's not the OBR interpretation, though.