Skunk in the Outfield hit by batted ball

[mcrowder]

Just wondering if this one would catch some off guard - even though this is probably TWP (which is why we saw no Tim response! ) - it provided for some interesting discussion at a recent meeting, and made people, even the experienced ones, think about the entirety of the rule.

This runner (barring intent) is not out. (FED/OBR)

What was interesting to me during the meeting was the number of umpires that wanted to bust him out, solely because he shouldn't have been there in the first place. Seems the skunk has irritated umpires everywhere, and they wanted any excuse to send him to the dugout.

[Rich]

Originally posted by mcrowder
Just wondering if this one would catch some off guard - even though this is probably TWP (which is why we saw no Tim response! ) - it provided for some interesting discussion at a recent meeting, and made people, even the experienced ones, think about the entirety of the rule.

This runner (barring intent) is not out. (FED/OBR)

What was interesting to me during the meeting was the number of umpires that wanted to bust him out, solely because he shouldn't have been there in the first place. Seems the skunk has irritated umpires everywhere, and they wanted any excuse to send him to the dugout.

The runner is out in OBR according to Jim Evans and everyone who understands that a ball passing a fielder applies only to directly behind the fielder under the interpetation of that rule set. The string theory went out the window a while ago.

So those people were right for the wrong reason.

[mcrowder]

Show my what rule allows us to call this kid out. Because despite the continuing motivation to call this kid out, no one could find a thing that would actually allow us to do so. JE is god. But everyone makes mistakes, and based on the wording of our actual rules, the only thing that allows us to call this kid out is the God rule, and I doubt that would hold up on protest.

[Rich]

Originally posted by mcrowder
Show my what rule allows us to call this kid out. Because despite the continuing motivation to call this kid out, no one could find a thing that would actually allow us to do so. JE is god. But everyone makes mistakes, and based on the wording of our actual rules, the only thing that allows us to call this kid out is the God rule, and I doubt that would hold up on protest.

Are you saying "show me in the rule book?" You would have to determine what is meant by "passing a fielder" and that requires interpretation, which Jim Evans has provided.

The intent of the rule is to protect a runner who isn't reasonably able to get out of the way of a batted ball, not provide a safe haven for runners.

[mcrowder]

Uh huh... but the rest of the rule says INFIELDER.

[UmpJM]

I am afraid that I must protest the umpire's misapplication of the rules regarding interference in failing to call the "skunk" out in this play.

I was going to try to restate my appeal more persuasively, but I was somewhat taken aback by the antagonistic, unresponsive, and uncalled for remarks of the umpire in response to my reasonable and gentlemanly appeal (that would be ozzy - it seemed like he was looking to "toss somebody".)

Now both DownTownTonyBrown and Mcrowder conducted themselves in a much more reasonable and professional manner in denying my appeal, but I'm afraid that they too are misapplying the rules.

So, what do the rules say? First from Rule 2.0:

"INTERFERENCE
(a) Offensive interference is an act by the team at bat which interferes with, obstructs, impedes, hinders or confuses any fielder attempting to make a play."

The next significant mention of interference comes in a rule which has the purpose of defining when the ball becomes dead:

"5.09
The ball becomes dead and runners advance one base, or return to their bases, without liability to be put out, when_ ....(f) A fair ball touches a runner or an umpire on fair territory before it touches an infielder including the pitcher, or touches an umpire before it has passed an infielder other than the pitcher; ..."

While not using the word "interference", we also have:

"6.08
The batter becomes a runner and is entitled to first base without liability to be put out (provided he advances to and touches first base) when_ ...(d) A fair ball touches an umpire or a runner on fair territory before touching a fielder. ..."

Next, we have rules more specific to the runner:

"7.08
Any runner is out when_ ...(b) He intentionally interferes with a thrown ball; or hinders a fielder attempting to make a play on a batted ball; A runner who is adjudged to have hindered a fielder who is attempting to make a play on a batted ball is out whether it was intentional or not. ..."

and, the most specific:

"7.09
It is interference by a batter or a runner when: ...(m) A fair ball touches him on fair territory before touching a fielder. "

So, what do the rules say? They say (we'll work backwards here):

1. If a runner is hit by a fair batted ball while said runner is in fair territory and before "a fielder" has touched said batted ball, the runner has, by rule "interfered". (7.09(m))

2. If a runner interferes with a fielder attempting to field a batted ball, he is out, whether his interference was intentional or not. (7.08(b))

3. If a fair batted ball touches a runner before touching a fielder, the batter is awarded 1B "without liability".

4. If a fair ball touches a runner before touching an infielder, the ball is dead. (5.09(f))

5. Interference is judged when the runner's actions hinder any fielder attempting to make a play on a batted ball.

In mcrowder's original sitch, we have a runner hit by an untouched fair batted ball while said runner is in fair territory, thereby hindering a fielder's (F9) legitimate attempt to make a play on the fair batted ball.

By not calling the runner out, calling time, awarding the BR 1B, and returning any other runners to their TOP base, the umpire has misapplied the rules.

What is unclear about this? I rest my ca....

What? You say I'm playing "fast and loose" with the rules by "selectively quoting" those portions of the rules which appear to support my protest while completely ignoring those parts of the rules which clearly demonstrate that the umpire was absolutely correct in NOT calling the runner out for interference?

I was afraid you were going to bring that up.

And, I suppose it's only fair to address the objection. Now, if I understand it correctly, it would seem that those who would not call the runner out would do so under the belief that the rules somehow excuse the runner from his liability from interference when hit by an untouched fair batted ball in the following cases:

1. The batted fair ball is "farther away" from home plate than any infielder at the time he comes into contact with it.

and/or

2. Only infielders can be "protected" from this type of interference.

While this does seem to be a common misconception, the rules certainly don't say that. However, the rules do provide a couple of very specific exceptions when the runner is not liable for interference when hit by an untouched fair batted ball. They are:

1. When he is legally in contact with a base and the fair battted ball has properly been declared an "infield fly" by the umpire(s).

and

2. When the fair batted ball has gone "through or by" an infielder and hits a runner immediately back of said fielder, and, in the umpire's judgement the runner did not intentionally contact the ball and that no other infielder had a play on the ball.

Rule 7.09(m) contains the exclusions provided in my #2 immediately above. What does this language mean? I turn to JEA:

"Historical Notes: In 1877, the rules stated that a baserunner struck by any batted ball shall be declared out. The rules of 1920 amended this concept to provide that the runner was not to be declared out if a fair ball goes through an infielder and hits a runner immediately back of him. After the revision and recodification in 1950, the rule included balls that had been deflected. It further explained what the rulesmakers had in mind by stating that runners were not to be called out if the umpire was convinced that the ball passed through or by the infielders and no other infielder had a chance to make a play on the ball. Of course, if the runner deliberately kicked or interfered intentionally with any such ball, he would be declared out.

Professional Interpretation: Ordinarily, when a runner is struck with a fair ball, he is legitimately out. There are situations, however, in which he is not out:

(1) The fair ball touches him after going between the legs of an infielder, unless he allows the ball to strike him intentionally;
(2) The fair ball touches him after passing immediately by an infielder, unless he allows the ball to touch him
intentionally. “Immediately by” is considered as being within one arm's reach. If the fielder should have fielded the ball with ordinary effort but failed, the runner is not declared out.
(3) The ball touches him after being deflected, unless he intentionally interferes. An American League directive
orders that the runner shall not be called out even if another infielder had a chance to make a play (unless his actions are designed to interfere with the deflected ball.)"

Finally, there is the rule which I believe is the source of the confusion around the misconception that the runner is "absolved" if the ball hits him when it is "farther away from home" than any of the infielders:

"7.08
Any runner is out when_ ...(f) He is touched by a fair ball in fair territory before the ball has touched or passed an infielder. ..."

For clarification of "passed an infielder", I turn to the MLBUM under the discussion of "Batted Ball Striking the Runner" and the example plays provided to illustrate:

"(5) Runners on first and second, both runners stealing. Batter shows bunt, the first and third basemen move in, and the shortstop moves to cover third. The batter swings at the last minute and hits a ground ball in the direction of the shortstop position. However, the shortstop has moved to cover third base, and no one is in position to field the ball. The ground ball strikes the
runner advancing from second base.
Ruling: Runner from second is declared out for being struck by a batted ball. The batter-runner is
placed at first base. The ball is not considered to have gone through or by an infielder in this play."

To summarize:

1. The principles behind the rules of baseball provide the defense an unhindered opportunity to field a fair batted ball - "any fielder" in the Rule 2.0 definition of "Offensive Interference".

2. The runner being hit by an untouched fair batted ball which the defense has not had an attempt at and which has not already resulted in an out (the IFF exception) is properly ruled interference.

3. Being "behind" the infielders does not absolve the runner unless the ball has passed "between the legs" or "within an arm's reach" of one of those infielders.

Thank you for hearing my protest. I would be happy to try to provide any additional information you might require in reaching your decision.

JM

[mbyron]

That's pretty exhaustive. I hope you never protest one of my calls, JM.

I agree, though: the plain intent of the rule is to place the burden on the runner to avoid a batted ball and to give the defense the opportunity to defend. If the runner positions himself in the outfield, I see no reason to insist on the letter of the law and allow the runner to interfere with a batted ball just because he's sufficiently far from the infield.

You might say that I'm making up my own rules, but then you wouldn't have read the coach's post.

[mcrowder]

JM, you're not ejected, especially if all of those quotes are off the top of your head. Sure hope you didn't bring the book out to show them to me though.

You've given me food for thought for the masses. I will bring your post to our meeting tomorrow night. Remember, the vast majority of this room WANTS to rule the kid out. Maybe you've given us the ammo to do so.

[Rich]

Originally posted by mcrowder
JM, you're not ejected, especially if all of those quotes are off the top of your head. Sure hope you didn't bring the book out to show them to me though.

You've given me food for thought for the masses. I will bring your post to our meeting tomorrow night. Remember, the vast majority of this room WANTS to rule the kid out. Maybe you've given us the ammo to do so.

And the Evans cite got posted before I had the time to do so. Thanks.

--Rich

[UmpJM]

Rich,

I apologize for "poaching your call" on the JEA cite. Thank you (and Rich Ives) for the "moral support" following my initial "appeal" post on this thread.

mcrowder,

I'm afraid the only thing "off the top of my head" these days is the vast majority of my hair. However, my initial post on this thread was (at least MOSTLY) "off the top of my head". While I always bring my rulebook to the game, it remains in the dugout unless the umpire grants explicit permission for its egress. I understand that it is considered "poor etiquette" otherwise.

I must admit that I'm a little curious regarding the nature of the discussion at your pending meeting. Please let us know.

mb,

Yes, I was a little "exhausted" after composing that longwinded post. Thanks for noticing.

I doubt that I would have a reason to protest a "decision" you made in a game if you were the umpire and I were the coach. If it did happen, I bet it would be fun!

FWIW, I especially enjoyed the closing statement of your post.

JM

[cowbyfan1]

Originally posted by CoachJM
I am afraid that I must protest the umpire's misapplication of the rules regarding interference in failing to call the "skunk" out in this play.

I was going to try to restate my appeal more persuasively, but I was somewhat taken aback by the antagonistic, unresponsive, and uncalled for remarks of the umpire in response to my reasonable and gentlemanly appeal (that would be ozzy - it seemed like he was looking to "toss somebody".)

Now both DownTownTonyBrown and Mcrowder conducted themselves in a much more reasonable and professional manner in denying my appeal, but I'm afraid that they too are misapplying the rules.

So, what do the rules say? First from Rule 2.0:

"INTERFERENCE
(a) Offensive interference is an act by the team at bat which interferes with, obstructs, impedes, hinders or confuses any fielder attempting to make a play."

The next significant mention of interference comes in a rule which has the purpose of defining when the ball becomes dead:

"5.09
The ball becomes dead and runners advance one base, or return to their bases, without liability to be put out, when_ ....(f) A fair ball touches a runner or an umpire on fair territory before it touches an infielder including the pitcher, or touches an umpire before it has passed an infielder other than the pitcher; ..."

While not using the word "interference", we also have:

"6.08
The batter becomes a runner and is entitled to first base without liability to be put out (provided he advances to and touches first base) when_ ...(d) A fair ball touches an umpire or a runner on fair territory before touching a fielder. ..."

Next, we have rules more specific to the runner:

"7.08
Any runner is out when_ ...(b) He intentionally interferes with a thrown ball; or hinders a fielder attempting to make a play on a batted ball; A runner who is adjudged to have hindered a fielder who is attempting to make a play on a batted ball is out whether it was intentional or not. ..."

and, the most specific:

"7.09
It is interference by a batter or a runner when: ...(m) A fair ball touches him on fair territory before touching a fielder. "

So, what do the rules say? They say (we'll work backwards here):

1. If a runner is hit by a fair batted ball while said runner is in fair territory and before "a fielder" has touched said batted ball, the runner has, by rule "interfered". (7.09(m))

2. If a runner interferes with a fielder attempting to field a batted ball, he is out, whether his interference was intentional or not. (7.08(b))

3. If a fair batted ball touches a runner before touching a fielder, the batter is awarded 1B "without liability".

4. If a fair ball touches a runner before touching an infielder, the ball is dead. (5.09(f))

5. Interference is judged when the runner's actions hinder any fielder attempting to make a play on a batted ball.

In mcrowder's original sitch, we have a runner hit by an untouched fair batted ball while said runner is in fair territory, thereby hindering a fielder's (F9) legitimate attempt to make a play on the fair batted ball.

By not calling the runner out, calling time, awarding the BR 1B, and returning any other runners to their TOP base, the umpire has misapplied the rules.

What is unclear about this? I rest my ca....

What? You say I'm playing "fast and loose" with the rules by "selectively quoting" those portions of the rules which appear to support my protest while completely ignoring those parts of the rules which clearly demonstrate that the umpire was absolutely correct in NOT calling the runner out for interference?

I was afraid you were going to bring that up.

And, I suppose it's only fair to address the objection. Now, if I understand it correctly, it would seem that those who would not call the runner out would do so under the belief that the rules somehow excuse the runner from his liability from interference when hit by an untouched fair batted ball in the following cases:

1. The batted fair ball is "farther away" from home plate than any infielder at the time he comes into contact with it.

and/or

2. Only infielders can be "protected" from this type of interference.

While this does seem to be a common misconception, the rules certainly don't say that. However, the rules do provide a couple of very specific exceptions when the runner is not liable for interference when hit by an untouched fair batted ball. They are:

1. When he is legally in contact with a base and the fair battted ball has properly been declared an "infield fly" by the umpire(s).

and

2. When the fair batted ball has gone "through or by" an infielder and hits a runner immediately back of said fielder, and, in the umpire's judgement the runner did not intentionally contact the ball and that no other infielder had a play on the ball.

Rule 7.09(m) contains the exclusions provided in my #2 immediately above. What does this language mean? I turn to JEA:

"Historical Notes: In 1877, the rules stated that a baserunner struck by any batted ball shall be declared out. The rules of 1920 amended this concept to provide that the runner was not to be declared out if a fair ball goes through an infielder and hits a runner immediately back of him. After the revision and recodification in 1950, the rule included balls that had been deflected. It further explained what the rulesmakers had in mind by stating that runners were not to be called out if the umpire was convinced that the ball passed through or by the infielders and no other infielder had a chance to make a play on the ball. Of course, if the runner deliberately kicked or interfered intentionally with any such ball, he would be declared out.

Professional Interpretation: Ordinarily, when a runner is struck with a fair ball, he is legitimately out. There are situations, however, in which he is not out:

(1) The fair ball touches him after going between the legs of an infielder, unless he allows the ball to strike him intentionally;
(2) The fair ball touches him after passing immediately by an infielder, unless he allows the ball to touch him
intentionally. “Immediately by” is considered as being within one arm's reach. If the fielder should have fielded the ball with ordinary effort but failed, the runner is not declared out.
(3) The ball touches him after being deflected, unless he intentionally interferes. An American League directive
orders that the runner shall not be called out even if another infielder had a chance to make a play (unless his actions are designed to interfere with the deflected ball.)"

Finally, there is the rule which I believe is the source of the confusion around the misconception that the runner is "absolved" if the ball hits him when it is "farther away from home" than any of the infielders:

"7.08
Any runner is out when_ ...(f) He is touched by a fair ball in fair territory before the ball has touched or passed an infielder. ..."

For clarification of "passed an infielder", I turn to the MLBUM under the discussion of "Batted Ball Striking the Runner" and the example plays provided to illustrate:

"(5) Runners on first and second, both runners stealing. Batter shows bunt, the first and third basemen move in, and the shortstop moves to cover third. The batter swings at the last minute and hits a ground ball in the direction of the shortstop position. However, the shortstop has moved to cover third base, and no one is in position to field the ball. The ground ball strikes the
runner advancing from second base.
Ruling: Runner from second is declared out for being struck by a batted ball. The batter-runner is
placed at first base. The ball is not considered to have gone through or by an infielder in this play."

To summarize:

1. The principles behind the rules of baseball provide the defense an unhindered opportunity to field a fair batted ball - "any fielder" in the Rule 2.0 definition of "Offensive Interference".

2. The runner being hit by an untouched fair batted ball which the defense has not had an attempt at and which has not already resulted in an out (the IFF exception) is properly ruled interference.

3. Being "behind" the infielders does not absolve the runner unless the ball has passed "between the legs" or "within an arm's reach" of one of those infielders.

Thank you for hearing my protest. I would be happy to try to provide any additional information you might require in reaching your decision.

JM

Wow, where were you when the blue called Posada out for interference after the ball went under that wanna be firstbaseman Piazza last year. Play happened in the 1b cutout and they actaully ruled that the 2b could have made a play (least that is what was reported). Replay clearly showed F4 was nowhere in the play. The ball hit Posada who was just behind Piazza. In fact if Piazza had gloved it he probably could have tagged Posada out.