runner struck by thrown ball

[BigUmp56]

Thanks, guys.


Tim.

[LDUB]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I just think it does not make good common sense to call interference on a play like this just because the runner was running where they were supposed to.

The runner was not where he was supposed to be. The runner has two options: Slide or get out of the way. He did neither and altered the play by being hit with a thrown ball. That is interference. This play is very easy to call without even seeing it.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by LDUB

The runner was not where he was supposed to be. The runner has two options: Slide or get out of the way. He did neither and altered the play by being hit with a thrown ball. That is interference. This play is very easy to call without even seeing it.

I disagree. If the runner was not in direct line of the throw, he does not have to do anything special. If that is the case we would call a runner out going to first base and running directly to the base. If all the runner did in this case was to not run very fast, that is not interference in my book. In this case the runner would have to at least get hit by the ball. Calling this just makes you look over-officious.

Peace

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by LDUB

The runner was not where he was supposed to be. The runner has two options: Slide or get out of the way. He did neither and altered the play by being hit with a thrown ball. That is interference. This play is very easy to call without even seeing it.

The runner was just "6-10 feet" from second at the time of the force at second and subsequent throw. It is hard to say he wasn't where he was supposed to be...he may have been trying to beat the play. He may even have been preparing to slide. We don't know. I don't believe you can expect a runner who is going full speed and trying to beat the throw to just evaporate or even to suddenly move three feet to one side or another.

You have to be careful rewarding the plunking of runners who do not intentionally interfere. The behaviour this could encourage is scary. I am not saying it was definitely not interference. I am saying that calling this "very easy to call without evening seeing it" is a bit glib...in my opinion. That said, I know a number of umpires will call this interference regardless of the runner's position or intent. I am not one of them.

[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).

[LMan]

Its my understanding that the runner's leeway/allowance on INT decreases as he moves closer to 2B, with INT being more likely esp once the runner is 1/2 to 2B or closer.

If he's less than 1/2 to 2B, the onus is more on the fielder to avoid the runner with his throw. As the runner approaches 2B, the onus shifts to the runner. Of course, at what point it becomes INT is a judgment call by the umpire.

This is how I understand it, but I could be incorrect.

[BlueLawyer]

The ball hit him in the thigh 6-10 feet from second. It would take exceptional athletic ability to intentionally interfere with that throw in that way. And I didn't read intent in the sitch.

So, what's the runner supposed to do? He's forced from first. He has to run. I agree with the previous post that if you go get a double play on that sitch, the defense is going to start throwing at runners instead of trying to throw to first. Put some responsibility on the defense to make the play.

Strikes and outs!

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

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

I have to believe that they threw in the "less than halfway to second" as a red herring to make it a trick question. What, now we are supposed to bring our tape measures out and determine when the runner has passed 45 feet? I remain steadfast that the runner must intentionally interfere for it to be called.

[LDUB]

Originally Posted by BlueLawyer

The ball hit him in the thigh 6-10 feet from second. It would take exceptional athletic ability to intentionally interfere with that throw in that way. And I didn't read intent in the sitch.

Intent has nothing to do with the FPSR.

Originally Posted by BlueLawyer

So, what's the runner supposed to do? He's forced from first. He has to run. I agree with the previous post that if you go get a double play on that sitch, the defense is going to start throwing at runners instead of trying to throw to first. Put some responsibility on the defense to make the play.

Quote from Rumble: "On a force play a runner hit by a throw between the bases is guilty of interference if he did not slide or run well away from the fielder making the throw."

This was clairified by Bob Jenkins' play. It appears that interference was being called even if the runner was only 20 feet from first base. Bob's play altered Rumble's play to allow runners close to first to not be guilty of interference.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Rumble is a pro interp, and the Jenkins play is a FED play. It is still going to end up being a judgment call by the umpire.

[BigUmp56]

It's going to be pretty hard to say it wasn't interference if the runner was only 6 to 10 feet from the base when he was struck by the ball.


Tim.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by BigUmp56

It's going to be pretty hard to say it wasn't interference if the runner was only 6 to 10 feet from the base when he was struck by the ball.


Tim.

If you are going to make that call "automatic", then you are holding the runner responsible for the timing of the fielder's actions and ability.

I make that call on a case by case basis. I do not reward offenses who bobble balls, throw poorly, miss bases and plunk runners at the last second to draw a call.

[LDUB]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

Rumble is a pro interp, and the Jenkins play is a FED play. It is still going to end up being a judgment call by the umpire.

Brad Rumble is a former NFHS rule interpreter.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by LDUB

Brad Rumble is a former NFHS rule interpreter.

Correct...former rules interpreter...and the author of what some FED clincians refer to as Rumble's Ramblings.

[LDUB]

Originally Posted by GarthB

I do not reward offenses who bobble balls, throw poorly, miss bases and plunk runners at the last second to draw a call.

So you are rewarding the runner who failed to slide or get out of the way. Where do you expect the fielder to throw the ball when the runner is standing 10 feet away in a direct line between him and first base?