runner struck by thrown ball

[hbenson]

ball hit to shortstop who tosses to second for force out. Runner from first is approximately 6-l0 feet from second when second baseman catches ball and turns to throw to first for attempted double play. Throw hits runner from first in mid thigh(no way for throw to reach first) and umpire calls batter out for runner interference. Correct Call?

[JRutledge]

Who did the umpire call interference on? The runner from first or the batter/runner?

Peace

[hbenson]

he call interference on the runner from first

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by hbenson

he call interference on the runner from first

That would be the proper enforcement if there was interference ruled by the umpire. This is after all a judgment call. Not much I can say about the judgement of the umpire. What did the runner actually do in the umpire's mind to warrant a call like this?

Peace

[BigUmp56]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

That would be the proper enforcement if there was interference ruled by the umpire. This is after all a judgment call. Not much I can say about the judgement of the umpire. What did the runner actually do in the umpire's mind to warrant a call like this?

Peace

Jeff:

Assuming this was a FED game, would you have the runner out for interference due to his proximity to second base on this play? I realize that it's hard to say without seeing the play, but I wonder if that might not apply here.


Tim.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BigUmp56

Jeff:

Assuming this was a FED game, would you have the runner out for interference due to his proximity to second base on this play? I realize that it's hard to say without seeing the play, but I wonder if that might not apply here.

No I would not. The only way I can see calling interference for a play like this if the runner did everything on purpose to get hit by the ball or get in the way of the throw. This play does not sound like that.

Peace

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BigUmp56

Jeff:

Assuming this was a FED game, would you have the runner out for interference due to his proximity to second base on this play? I realize that it's hard to say without seeing the play, but I wonder if that might not apply here.


Tim.

FED 2006 Interps, Situation 19 is this play, except R1 is "less than halfway to second." In the situation, the play stands (no interference).

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by PWL

PLEASE DON'T CALL INTERFERENCE ON THIS PLAY. YOU WILL ONLY BE MAKING TROUBLE FOR YOURSELF. UNLESS THE RUNNER DOES SOMETHING INTENTIONAL TO CAUSE THE INTERFERENCE, IT IS NOTHING. THEY ARE PLAYING BASEBALL, NOT DODGEBALL.

BTW-I BELIEVE THERE IS A CASEBOOK PLAY THAT COVERS THIS VERY SITUATION.

I must say, when you're right, you're right! I agree completely. Only in much smaller letters.

[big]

Unless R1 was out of direct line between bases by more then 3 feet and was trying to INTENTIONALLY block throw @ 2nd there would have been no interference.

[hbenson]

the runner from first was in the basepath directly between first and second. Big, slow kid who was not fast enough to get out of the way or brave enough to intentionally take a thrown ball for the good of the team

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by big

Unless R1 was out of direct line between bases by more then 3 feet and was trying to INTENTIONALLY block throw @ 2nd there would have been no interference.

Mr. Big,

The 3 feet rule only applies to avoiding a tag. The runner establishes his own baseline between his starting position and the base to which he is advancing or retreating. The runner in this case has to intentionally move into the path of the throw with the intent to block the throw, as you said, in order to judge interference.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

The runner establishes his own baseline between his starting position and the base to which he is advancing or retreating.

The runner establishes his base path, not the baseline. The baseline stays the same because the bases do not move.

Peace

[Thatballzlow]

Originally Posted by big

Unless R1 was out of direct line between bases by more then 3 feet and was trying to INTENTIONALLY block throw @ 2nd there would have been no interference.

I take exception to the 3 foot rule interpretation you have there...

The three foot rule has ABSOLUTELY NO BEARING on this play...that is when a runner is attempting to avoid a tag...

In this play...remember the rule of thumb that I was taught a long time ago by a MLB umpire...

"By interpretation, there is only one place the runner can be called out for interference for 'unintentionally' interfering with a thrown ball, and that would be runners lane between home and first on a ball being fielded directly to first base. Intent is assumed by him being out of the lane that they gave him to run in to avoid such a play. Getting struck by a thrown ball (unless forced to avoid or slide by FED rules, etc...) simply by running does not constitute interference...intent must be there."

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by PWL

The only time I've ever seen the exception to the rule was in the World Series when the Yankees and Dodgers were playing in the late 70's. Reggie Jackson was forced out at second and was only about a third of the way to the base. He then stuck his backside out to get hit by the throw from second. Guess what? It still wasn't called. Tommy LaSorda argued for all it was worth, but to no avail.

Yes, I remember that! Reggie should have been called out for interference, but I guess the umpires were too much in awe of his stature or something. I couldn't believe what I saw, as he actually intentionally stuck his butt out to interfere.

[UmpJM]

Originally Posted by hbenson

ball hit to shortstop who tosses to second for force out. Runner from first is approximately 6-l0 feet from second when second baseman catches ball and turns to throw to first for attempted double play. Throw hits runner from first in mid thigh(no way for throw to reach first) and umpire calls batter out for runner interference. Correct Call?

I hadn't read this thread until now, because the title didn't interest me. When I saw how many replies it had generated, I had to look.

Now I have always said (and I believe this was the point GarthB was making) that it is impossible to comment definitively regarding an interference (or obstruction) call without having been there.

Having said that, I can't believe the discussion that has taken place to this point.

Now, there is one material fact that hbenson has omitted from his description of the sitch: what rule code was in effect.

If the game is being played under OBR, this is most likely properly "ruled" E4, live ball, play the bounce.

If the game is being played under FED or NCAA this is almost without a doubt a violation of the Force Play Slide Rule (as, I believe, LDUB was th first to point out), ball is dead, BR is out. If not, the FPSR has no meaning and doesn't really exist.

In the sitch posed by hbenson, the runner is six to ten feet from 2B at the time the pivot man catches the throw from the shortstop. This means he is a lot closer to 2B at the time he is hit by the throw - even the slowest runner will be within a body length of 2B.

This is what the NCAA FPSR says:

"...
a. On any force play, the runner must slide on the ground and in a direct
line between the two bases.
Exception—A runner need not slide directly into a base as long as the
runner slides or runs in a direction away from the fielder to avoid making
contact or altering the play of the fielder. ...

A.R.—If a runner goes into a base standing up and does not make contact or alter the play of the defensive player, interference shall not be called. ..."

So, in the original sitch, we have:

1. A force play

2. A forced runner, in near proximity to his "forced to" base who does not slide

3. An alteration of the play being attempted by the pivot man caused by the forced runner.

Sure sounds like an FPSR violation to me (if you're playing under FED or NCAA).

It might not be. hbenson didn't tell us whether the runner ran "...in a direction away from the fielder to avoid making contact or altering the play of the fielder...".

If he did, then you've got a whole lot of umpire judgement as to whether or not his effort was sufficient to avoid an FPSR violation. If I understand him correctly, I believe this was Garth's point.

Under OBR, on the other hand, there is no FPSR and the runner is explicitly excused from liability for interference if he is simply "continuing his advance", even if he has just been put out. So, unless he did something like stick out his leg to intentionally interfere, it's live ball, play on. If the umpire judges that he did intentionally interfere (other than by continuing his advance), the ball is dead and the BR is out if the umpire also judges that the defense would have put him out absent the interference.

JM