Runner on third base. Greg Maddux hits ground ball down third base line. Ball hits R3 who has retreated to third and is on third when he was hit. I didn't see the play. Did the ball go past the third baseman and then hit R3? The ruling was the ball was live R3 scored and Maddux ended up on first. Ay comments?

...I saw the play...
 

...Paul Bako was on third when Greg Maddux hit a chopper up the third base side. Bako retreated back to third and was hit on the arm in fair territory while on the base. I thought, "Damn, interference. Typical Cub luck." But no call was made. The ball trickled away from Batista (Expo 3rd baseman), Bako scored and Maddux ended up on first...

...I'm really not sure why interference wasn't called. Batista could have made the play easily and Bako wasn't protected even though he was on the base. The ball was in fair territory when Bako was struck. No argument from Robinson, so I guess no one knew interference had occurred...

I had a chance to look this up in J/R. There are two exceptions where a base is a safe haven. In the event of an infield fly and when the fielder is in the proximity of the base if the runner is on the base and it hits him. It makes sense that the runner has to stay on the base if the ball and fielder are in the immediate vicinity otherwise he's an easy out.

...roger the infield fly rule (an out has already been delcared, so the runner is protected unless s/he tries to advance) but should the defense be double penalized (run scored and b-r on first) for interference by the offense? Granted, there's no way that Bako could have avoided being hit (his back was to the batted ball) but I would have called Bako out (interference) and put Maddux on first...

To be honest with you I would have called Bako out and put Maddux on first as well. However it is apparently an exception as per J/R which is the manuel used at one of the Umpire Schools.

...I have the J/R Rules differences edition. What page did you find the interpretation regarding the baserunner on the base w/a fielder and ball in the vicinity? My interpreation was based on BRD 2004 by Childress, p176, sec 304: interference by runner w/batted ball before it passes a fielder (ball is dead, runner is out) and pp 178-179, sec 308: interference by runner w/batted ball on base hit by ball (runner is out unless hit by declared infield fly EXCEPT if defensive player had a chance to field a fair batted ball and chose not to)...

I believe it was on Page 98 of J/R

It sounds more like 3B was playing in and the ball passed him before it touched R3.

No third baseman was even with the bag. This is a call that happens "once every 10 years"and involves an exception, that to be honest with you, I never knew was in the "book"

Gordon,
I think you misread the rule in the JR manual. I just received the newest rules difference edition and the exception you refer to starts out, "2. If a runner and protected fielder contact during a fair or catchable batted ball, but the runner is touching his base when the contact occurs, he has not interfered...."

This second exception deals with FIELDER and runner on base contacting. If the runner is on his base and contacts a batted ball, he has still interfered and is out, unless the ball has gone past a fielder, blah, blah, blah.

When it rains, it pours...
 

...believe it or not, there was another runner at third hit by a batted ball in the finale at Montreal. I only caught the replay once but it looked like Ramirez (Cubs 3rd baseman) cut in front of 3rd base trying to field a grounder but missed. Then the grounder bounced up and hit the Expo baserunner standing on third. Though not absolutely sure, I think the runner was struck by the ball which was fair. The umps ruled that the ball was touched foul by Ramirez (uh, I don't think so), so it was dead when it hit the runner, thus, no advance...

...did anyone see the play? I realize that there were even less fans at Olympic Stadium (about five thousand), so I'm doubtful that many saw this play...

Didn't see it but heard about it while listening to the game on the radio. Dave Otto said "the ball was in foul territory". Otto said the ball struck the runner. If the runner was on the base how could this be the case? What are the odds of this happening again?

If the runner was on the base how could this be the case?

I did not see this particular play, but how could it happen? Easy.

R3 is standing with his left foot on 2B. The rest of his body is in foul territory. The batted ball strikes him in say, the right leg.

The runner was struck while standing "on the base", but the ball is foul because it struck him on or over foul territory.

added in edit: Yes, I meant 3B. That would be a mighty long legged runner otherwise!

Thanks for catching my gaffe!

[Edited by Atl Blue on Sep 2nd, 2004 at 08:15 PM]

you mean 3B, right?

...wow, I should get a proofreader as today's initial post wasn't clear...

...first, the runner was definitely hit by the batted ball after it bounced past Ramirez. Second, the ball looked like it touched the runner in fair territory (the camera angle was deceiving as it came from above and from the first base side). Unfotunately, I didn't see the play when it occurred and only saw the tail end of the replay...

...very strange that it happened twice in the series. What's even more interesting is that on the next pitch, the batter hit the ball in which Ramirez had to make a similar play, cutting across the 3rd baseline to field the ball in foul territory. It didn't hit the runner but he was in the vicinity of the play...

...just thought it would have been cool if Ramirez had clearly missed fielding the ball that bounced foul first then fair, hitting the runner standing on 3rd base. Would the umps had ruled similarly as in the first game (live ball) to be consistent, declare the ball dead but leave the runner on 3rd, or call the runner out for interference, dead ball, and place the batter on first?...