Steve,
 

I am not trying to argue this play at all.

What I am trying to do is understand what a FED base runner is required to do by rule.

We could make the play more difficult if you want:

R1, less than two out.

A line drive is hit at F6. R1 seeing the line drive returns towards first base.

F6 legally allows the line drive to "short hop" in front of him, he makes the play on the ball and he tosses to F4 for the force who then throws to first base.

The throw hits the retreating R1 in the back as he is headed back to the base thinking the line drive was to be cuaght. So now R1 is 90' from second base whenhe is hit -- the balls then goes in to DBT.

What happens now?

Regards,

I would use the following from the NFHS website:

SITUATION 19: R1 is on first base with no outs. B2 smashes a one-hopper to F6, who flips the ball to F4 to quickly retire R1. F4 then relays the ball to first in an attempt for a double play, but the ball strikes R1, who is in the baseline and less than halfway to second. The ball ricochets into short right field and B2 reaches first safely. RULING: The play stands. This is not a violation of the force-play slide rule by R1. Unless R1 intentionally made a move to interfere with the thrown ball, the ball stays live and in play. (8-4-2b, 8-4-2g)

Regardless of his distance from 2nd base, IMHO the runners actions do not constitute an obvious attempt to break up a DP. I consider "obvious attempt," as stated in the rule, as an intentional act of interference by a runner. An itentional act can be interpreted many ways because we have to make a split second decision, understanding what was the player thinking while they were doing what ever.

One must use some element of common sense when umpiring. Otherwise, a whole lot of solid excrement, (you know the word), can occur with coaches going balistic on two bit rinky dink calls.

Well Tee,

In this case R1 is not a retired runner, plus he is legally returning to a base because the rules say he has to. That would just be an error.

Like I said, I could be wrong in calling interference. I didn't see the play, so I'm just picturing it in my mind that the runner could plainly see that an easy DP was going to be made, and gotten the heck out of the way of the throw. Just like the pros do. They do not stay in the base line to get nailed with the throw. By the very act of not ducking or veering to avoid interfering with the throw, I say it's interference according to 8-4-1h.

Uh, Steve.... What?!?!

Yes, he's retired, and no, he's not required to go back to first. Did you misread?

In any of these scenarios, in either ruleset, I'm pretty comfortable saying that you have to have INTENT to rule interference.

Wow, the FED is again contradicting itself. 8-4-2b is about the FPSR, which is not even argued in the above play. Nobody said it was a violation of the FPSR, so why are they mentioning it. 8-4-2g is not applicable either, since it declares that runner out, not the batter-runner. In our plays, R1 is already out, so the rule that applies here is 8-4-1h. "The batter-runner is out when any runner or retired runner interferes (2-21-1, 2-30-3) in a way which obviously hinders an obvious double play."

Either the Casebook ruling above is wrong, or Rule 8-4-1h is wrong.

Shickenbottom, notice that the rule does not say an "obvious attempt" by the runner, it just says that he obviously hinders. It does not say that the runner has to actually try to hinder, just that he obviously has hindered.

mcrowder,

I was referring to Tim's other scenario on the line drive to F6. I thought my post would be immediately underneath his, but there are several between us. I wasn't talking about the original play.

:-}
 

Thank you Tom . . . a written FED response that I had missed.

Ain't the internet great.

(Especially with the opportunity to place people on your ignore list).

Regards,

Or.....

"If a retired runner interferes, and in the judgement of the umpire, another runner could have been put out, the umpire shall declare that runner out.

Which is also in 8-4-2g. I suppose our "judgement" would be the definition of interference, in Tee's original sitch, the retired runner is more than 1/2 way to second. In the casebook 19 sitch, the retired runner is not 1/2 to second. Now, should that information change our "judgement" on the interference?

The rule book definition of interference is..."an act by the offensive team which interferes with, obstructs, impedes, hinders or confuses any fielder attempting to make a play...". Is intent implied?

Bob P.

If you start calling runners out for getting hit with a baseball, you know coaches will start telling the fielders to start throwing at them, just don't be to obvious.

Slow runner if the ball hits him less than halfway to 2b on the other end of a 6-4-3. Oh well. This does seem to resolve the question.

[I think this post I have quoted got deleted while I was replying (smart thing to do).]

And which way does he need to veer ?

How is he supposed to know what line the throw from 2b is going to come from ?

Maybe he should dig a fox hole to sit in safely as the throw goes over his head, along with the umpire who calls interference.:cool:

The direct line from 1st base to 2nd base belongs to the runner, baring intentional interference. This is no different from the play I had today where F3 drilled R1 in the back, attempting to throw him out on a ground ball at 2nd base. The runner was in the baseline, SAFE.

D***. That's what I was going to say.

OTOH, there's a similar play / interp from a few years ago (that I don't have with me) that has R1 out. IIRC, R1 is closer to second base in this "older" interp.

And, while the words "veer off" are (apparently -- I didn't search) not in the book, the phrase "slide or run in a direction away from a fielder" is in the book (in, at least, the 2006 POE)

My First Shot
 

Well, I will jump into this one as my first attempt to post on this site.

I am a Central Illinois guy and have spent the last few weeks reading through posts on this forum to get a feel for things.

I got my copy of the BRD a few days ago and think that something I read has some application here.

Section 274 talks about Fed 8.3.3f and states that a runner is not guilty of interference if he continues to advance even if he knows he is out, even if that advance allows other runners to make additional bases.

In this scenario the runner is, in my opinion, too far away from second to fall under the FPSR. To me this rule says he does not need to veer off. He can continue to run the base path in a straight line despite being out.

From other discussions on this forum I've learned that it is interference with a thrown ball only if it is intentional.

Therefore my vote in this scenario is that I have nothing. The runner did not interfere intentionally and was within his right to continue to run in a straight line toward second base.

Hopefully I'm not too far off base with my first shot at a rules debate here.

Thanks guys,

Kyle