The Official Forum - Is this runner interference?

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)

- Baseball (https://forum.officiating.com/baseball/)

- - Is this runner interference? (https://forum.officiating.com/baseball/2394-runner-interference.html)

Quote:

Originally posted by bob jenkins

Quote:

Originally posted by Gee
First, Bob, You can go to URC, message board, to Situations, to the thread, Runner hit by a batted ball. 5/7 to 5/10.

Thanks. Here's the relevant play from FED:

8.4.2i Play: With R2 on second, BR hits toward second. The batted ball hits R2 while he is standing on second or while he is on his way to third. F4 and F6 (a) are playing deep behind the baseline or (b) F6 is playing in front of the baseline.

Now, I think this is substantially similar to the play that started this thread. Sure, it uses F6 instead of F5. And, the infield is in and the "normal" instead of the infield "normal" and the runner "back." Those differences shouldn't matter.

I think you'd agree that, under OBR, the runner is out in both cases (assuming the ball didn't pass "through" F6 -- which seems like a safe assumption in the case where R2 in on second).

So, here's the FED ruling:

Ruling:In (a), the ball is dead immediately. R2 is out and BR is awarded first base. In (b), the touching is ignored unless it is ruled intentional, and the ball remains alive because no other fielder had a chance to make a play on the batted ball. (5-1-if)

Note that in (a), the ruling is the same as in OBR -- the ball hadn't "passed" F6 under any definition. It's only under case (b) where there's a difference.

Basically, the OBR interp is that the ball must pass "through" a fielder before the runner is "protected" (some exceptions).

THe FED uses the "string" theory -- use a string to attach F3 to F4 to F6 to F5. If the ball passes the string, the runner is protected.

NCAA uses a rule similar to FED. Sorry, I don't have the exact reference here.

#################

OK, there have been a lot of points made by you and others about this ruling in OBR vs FED.

The first one was Peter's on the deflected ball. Same as OBR so that's a wash.

The second was Play B above with the infielder IN. That is the Brinkman ruling which, according to Carl, was accepted as authoritative opinion by the OBR. As I have said, that ruling is no longer accepted. However FED does accept it. So when you have a DRAWN IN INFIELDER in FED ball the "PASSING" is ignored. Fine.

Now we go to an infield that is playing at NORMAL DEPTH and the runner is hit by a NON DEFLECTED ball. The fair batted ball has passed an infielder and no other infielder has a reasonable play on the ball. That is what this whole discussion is about, right. OK

Now the ball hits a runner. What's the call? In OBR the ump has to decide if the fielder has had a reasonable chance (5 feet) to make the play. If he has, the runner is safe. If he hasn't, the runner is out. Simple, right.

Now we go to FED. Same play, What's the call? No consideration is given to "reasonable chance" just bang him out. Now you mention the "string" theory. If that is written into the FED ruling I'll buy it, definitive, end of discussion.

Now the question is, is that written into the FED ruling or is it just a theory, used by you and others, to justify this call? After all, you need something to justify it and from what I've read there is nothing else.

OMT (That means, One More Thing) I am not saying your wrong, as I have no reference to the FED rules. I'm just asking why there is such a big difference in the two rulings. It appears to me that this is ruling by default. G.

Quote:

Originally posted by Gee
Now we go to an infield that is playing at NORMAL DEPTH and the runner is hit by a NON DEFLECTED ball. The fair batted ball has passed an infielder and no other infielder has a reasonable play on the ball. That is what this whole discussion is about, right. OK

Now the ball hits a runner. What's the call? In OBR the ump has to decide if the fielder has had a reasonable chance (5 feet) to make the play. If he has, the runner is safe. If he hasn't, the runner is out. Simple, right.

Now we go to FED. Same play, What's the call? No consideration is given to "reasonable chance" just bang him out. Now you mention the "string" theory. If that is written into the FED ruling I'll buy it, definitive, end of discussion.

Now the question is, is that written into the FED ruling or is it just a theory, used by you and others, to justify this call? After all, you need something to justify it and from what I've read there is nothing else.

OMT (That means, One More Thing) I am not saying your wrong, as I have no reference to the FED rules. I'm just asking why there is such a big difference in the two rulings. It appears to me that this is ruling by default. G.

There is no difference in the rulings whether the infield is drawn in or at normal depth. In OBR, it only matters whether a fielder had a play. In FED and NCAA, it only matters whether the ball went father from the plate than the fielder.

It's not the only difference between FED and OBR, and it's not the most "egregious".

I thought if the runner is hit by a ball which a fielder has a reasonable chance to make a play, the runner is OUT, not "safe". ???

Quote:

Originally posted by bob jenkins

It's not the only difference between FED and OBR, and it's not the most "egregious". [/B]

---------------------
I'll buy that statement, now we're on the same page. Good discussion. Tks. G.

Quote:

Originally posted by JJ
I thought if the runner is hit by a ball which a fielder has a reasonable chance to make a play, the runner is OUT, not "safe". ???

----------------------

JJ, I recommend that you read the entire thread. G.