runner struck by thrown ball

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by CoachJM

As described, the original play is almost certainly a violation by the R1 of the FPSR. I say it that way, because I didn't see the play. The pivot man may have "gone out of his way" to intentionally hit the R1 with the throw, rather than legitimately trying to complete the DP. The "slow" R1 may have been initiating a legal slide when the throw hit him. But, as presented, it's a violation. So, there are certainly elements of judgement, but whether or not the pivot man "should have" been able to throw around the runner ain't one of them.

How do you know that "as presented" it's a violation? As written, it was extremely unclear as to whether or not the fielder threw the ball at the runner intentionally to draw an interference call. Unless you see the play with your own two eyes, it is really impossible to accurately call this play. For instance, it was mentioned that the runner was hit in the thigh with the ball. Was he a midget? What kind of throw would hit the runner in the thigh? Most certainly not one that would make it to first base! I can easily invision F4 thinking, "well, I can't get 2 here, so I'm nailin' this joker. That'll teach him to slide!"

Originally Posted by CoachJM

I challenge any of you to provide a credible rule reference, case play, or interpretation that says I misconstrue how the rule should be applied. If you can, I'm all ears (eyes?), because I don't particularly like the rule either. I don't think one exists. Yet.

I think what Carl wrote about Rumbles Rambling in the BRD summed it up pretty well, in that the interpretation came out in 1998, and its wording has not yet been incorporated into either the rule or the casebook. If it was such a good way of ruling, the Federation rules makers should have included it in the language of the rule itself, so threads like this would be unnecessary.

[UmpJM]

Steve,

If you carefully read the first part of my post that you quoted , I hope you will see that I am in "violent agreement" with your comments in the paragraph you wrote beneath that quote.

By my read of the BRD and Carl's series of articles on the subject, I would guess that he is not a big fan of the Rumble ruling on the question. However, despite that, I believe he suggests that it SHOULD BE followed in ruling on the situation because it IS the official interpretation, is further reinforced by the "Situation 19" posted on the NFHS website in the 2006 rulings (referenced by Bob Jenkins earlier in this thread), and has not been superceded by ANYTHING. Yet.

JM

[BlueLawyer]

Where does this end?

Play: R1, 0 out. F6, who thinks R1 might be stealing on the pitch, is cheating towards the second base bag. The batter hits what intially appears to be a line drive towards second. The liner short hops F6 (no intentional drop), but he fields it and then steps on the bag, forcing R1. R1, dutifully retreating towards first because he didn't want to get doubled off, is now plunked in the back of the skull with F6's throw attempting to turn two. Did R1 interfere? Must I now declare the BR out also?

Are you kidding me?

Was R1, under all circumstances supposed to avoid F6's throw to first, including, literally, eyes in the back of his head (and, I take it, through his batting helmet)?

The so-called halfway rule (which means, in all seriousness, that a runner who suspects he might be forced would have to get down or out of the way 45 feet from second base.) appears nowhere in the official rules of FED or OBR or the casebooks that I have. Besides that, where are both umpires looking in a two-man system on a double play at second? At second, of course. The BU is looking to make sure the fielder has possession of the ball and puts the tag on the base before R1 gets there; the PU is primarily responsible for the crash, if there is one, at or beyond the second base bag. Who is looking in the general direction of the right-field foul pole on this play?

I am a firm believer in not drawing lines on the baseball field that are not already called for in the rules. We already have a 45-foot line on the way from home to first. Are we now drawing 45 foot lines between first and second, second and third and third and home?

Here's what the FED rule says: "Any runner is out when he does not legally slide and causes illegal contact and/or illegally alters the actions of a fielder in the immediate act of making a play, or on a force play, does not slide on a direct line between the bases . . . " 8-4-2b. The penalty calls for the BR to be out also. The original sitch does not involve a slide, so we can dispense with that part of the rule. And, as already mentioned, R1 is not forced to slide, but if he slides, he must do so legally (i.e., on the direct line between the bases). Now we are left with determining whether R1 "illegally" altered the actions of a fielder in the immediate act of making a play.

So here's the basic question under the FED rules: In the original sitch, is R1 illegally altering the actions of the fielder by getting hit in the thigh? I did not see the play, obviously. But I am going to tell you that I am an awful long way from ringing up two when a runner gets plunked in the thigh 6 feet from second.

Strikes and outs!

[David B]

Originally Posted by BlueLawyer

Where does this end?

Play: R1, 0 out. F6, who thinks R1 might be stealing on the pitch, is cheating towards the second base bag. The batter hits what intially appears to be a line drive towards second. The liner short hops F6 (no intentional drop), but he fields it and then steps on the bag, forcing R1. R1, dutifully retreating towards first because he didn't want to get doubled off, is now plunked in the back of the skull with F6's throw attempting to turn two. Did R1 interfere? Must I now declare the BR out also?

Are you kidding me?

Was R1, under all circumstances supposed to avoid F6's throw to first, including, literally, eyes in the back of his head (and, I take it, through his batting helmet)?

The so-called halfway rule (which means, in all seriousness, that a runner who suspects he might be forced would have to get down or out of the way 45 feet from second base.) appears nowhere in the official rules of FED or OBR or the casebooks that I have. Besides that, where are both umpires looking in a two-man system on a double play at second? At second, of course. The BU is looking to make sure the fielder has possession of the ball and puts the tag on the base before R1 gets there; the PU is primarily responsible for the crash, if there is one, at or beyond the second base bag. Who is looking in the general direction of the right-field foul pole on this play?

I am a firm believer in not drawing lines on the baseball field that are not already called for in the rules. We already have a 45-foot line on the way from home to first. Are we now drawing 45 foot lines between first and second, second and third and third and home?

Here's what the FED rule says: "Any runner is out when he does not legally slide and causes illegal contact and/or illegally alters the actions of a fielder in the immediate act of making a play, or on a force play, does not slide on a direct line between the bases . . . " 8-4-2b. The penalty calls for the BR to be out also. The original sitch does not involve a slide, so we can dispense with that part of the rule. And, as already mentioned, R1 is not forced to slide, but if he slides, he must do so legally (i.e., on the direct line between the bases). Now we are left with determining whether R1 "illegally" altered the actions of a fielder in the immediate act of making a play.

So here's the basic question under the FED rules: In the original sitch, is R1 illegally altering the actions of the fielder by getting hit in the thigh? I did not see the play, obviously. But I am going to tell you that I am an awful long way from ringing up two when a runner gets plunked in the thigh 6 feet from second.

Strikes and outs!

Exactly what I was thinking about this type of play. The runner is doing what he is supposed do, he can't just disappear.

Its the job of the defense to make the proper play and players that are taught properly will make the play.

Its not our job as umpires to bail out a F6 or F4 who throws the ball and hits the runner.

At least that is my reading in all of the various books that I've read for FED rules etc.,

Now if the runner does anything intentional, throws up hands, veers into the path of the throw etc., then I've got interference since he interfered with the play.

Simply to be running to the base legally and then getting hit with the ball on a poor throw does not imply interference in my book.

Thansk
David

[LDUB]

Originally Posted by David B

Exactly what I was thinking about this type of play. The runner is doing what he is supposed do, he can't just disappear.

Except the runner is not doing what he is supposed to be doing, runners are not supposed to go into second base standing up on a force play.

Originally Posted by David B

Its the job of the defense to make the proper play and players that are taught properly will make the play.

So then the fielder should have to adjust his throw to avoid the standing runner. If the runner is directly between the fielder and first base, the fielder has two ways in which he can throw to first: Step to the side and then throw, or throw the ball over the runner. Stepping to the side takes time, and a lob throw is not a quick as a direct throw. Either way the runner is giving the BR extra time to beat the throw to first. Wouldn't you say that runner is altering the play? Now of course if the fielder comes across the base, steps and throws all in one motion then the runner did not alter the play of the fielder in any way. But if the fielder notices that the runner is blocking his throwing lane to first and then adjusts his throw then the runner has altered the play.

[Paul L]

In order to say the runner interfered with the play, does BU have to judge that the fielder would have had a chance to turn the DP at first? In other words, if the throw obviously would have been too late, do you call interference anyway if you are of the school of thought that the runner has to get out of the fielder's way?

[UmpJM]

Originally Posted by Paul L

In order to say the runner interfered with the play, does BU have to judge that the fielder would have had a chance to turn the DP at first? In other words, if the throw obviously would have been too late, do you call interference anyway if you are of the school of thought that the runner has to get out of the fielder's way?

Paul L.,

Good question. Oddly enough, even if, in the umpire's judgement, the defense did NOT have a chance to turn the double play (absent the FPSR violation), the violation of the FPSR results in a double play. Strikes me as a little odd, but that's the rule (under FED & NCAA).

JM

P.S. Hey, I don't write 'em, I only try to understand 'em.

[NIump50]

Originally Posted by David B

Its not our job as umpires to bail out a F6 or F4 who throws the ball and hits the runner.

David

You're not bailing anyone out. By enforcing the rule you are potentially saving future runners from brain damage.

There seems to be a myth among many umpires that middle infielders are taught to 'adjust' their throw to avoid oncoming runners. This myth is as foolish and misguided as "the tie goes to the runner" myth. Any upper level coaches reading this thread are laughing at you much like we impune coaches for their ignorance of the rules.

Any runner who comes in daring the thrower to hit him is indeed not very smart, but no one ever accused these kids of genius.
You can't always legislate for stupidity, but coaches understand automatic DP for interference and will teach slide or get out of the way for strategic purpose if for no other reason.

I'm sure many of you will continue to allow the runner to come in standing up and hopefully force the fieder to adjust his throw. I wonder though how you'll feel the first time one of these runners ends up in the hospital with brain damage. I hope it never happens, but if it does I wonder if you'll think back to this discussion and think 'yea maybe this is one of the things FPSR was trying to prevent?'
For me, if I'm doing a Fed. game, I'm erring on the side of safety. For all of Feds faults we all know that their intention is safety.

[David B]

Originally Posted by NIump50

You're not bailing anyone out. By enforcing the rule you are potentially saving future runners from brain damage.

There seems to be a myth among many umpires that middle infielders are taught to 'adjust' their throw to avoid oncoming runners. This myth is as foolish and misguided as "the tie goes to the runner" myth. Any upper level coaches reading this thread are laughing at you much like we impune coaches for their ignorance of the rules.

Any runner who comes in daring the thrower to hit him is indeed not very smart, but no one ever accused these kids of genius.
You can't always legislate for stupidity, but coaches understand automatic DP for interference and will teach slide or get out of the way for strategic purpose if for no other reason.

I'm sure many of you will continue to allow the runner to come in standing up and hopefully force the fieder to adjust his throw. I wonder though how you'll feel the first time one of these runners ends up in the hospital with brain damage. I hope it never happens, but if it does I wonder if you'll think back to this discussion and think 'yea maybe this is one of the things FPSR was trying to prevent?'
For me, if I'm doing a Fed. game, I'm erring on the side of safety. For all of Feds faults we all know that their intention is safety.

Guys are cracking me up. I'll have to research the last time I've seen a kid with brain damage from a throw in the infield.

That's why we wear helmets - its called baseball, and sometimes its a rough game.

Kids get hit by throws all the time - the point is that we are officials. Our job is to call the rules, not protect the players from injury.

By rule, the player that wants to run to second instead of sliding has the right to do that without interference being called simply because he was standing up.

Our job as umpires is to make a judgement on whether there was interference or not. (And that is very very seldom going to be the result)

Over 28 years of calling baseball and i dont' have one mention in my journal of a kid being hurt by a throw from f4 or f6 on the DP. Seen a lot of close ones, but that's what makes it such a great game.

Thanks
David

[Bainer]

Originally Posted by David B

Over 28 years of calling baseball and i dont' have one mention in my journal of a kid being hurt by a throw from f4 or f6 on the DP.

I agree. Not only that, but I can't even count the number of injuries I've seen from sliding at second on a DP- getting stepped on, jamming the base, colliding with the fielder, INJURING THE FIELDER- we've all seen it.

Going in standing up isn't smart, but is isn't illegal either. We've all been taught the 'illegal' versions- waving arms, running at the fielder who is off the line, sliding at the fielder off the bag.

I think it would be MORE dangerous to implement a 'MUST SLIDE' rule on a DP- plus, what happens if the ball goes through? Or gets airmailed past the fielder on 2nd? R1 has to slide anyway? R1 has to assume that the play at 2 will be clean?

No way.


Bainer.

[LDUB]

Originally Posted by Bainer

We've all been taught the 'illegal' versions- waving arms, running at the fielder who is off the line, sliding at the fielder off the bag.

You forgot failing to slide and altering the play.

Originally Posted by Bainer

I think it would be MORE dangerous to implement a 'MUST SLIDE' rule on a DP- plus, what happens if the ball goes through? Or gets airmailed past the fielder on 2nd? R1 has to slide anyway? R1 has to assume that the play at 2 will be clean?

No way.

No one has said anything about forcing runners to slide. No one has said that if the runner does not slide that it is interference. What has been said is that the runner either has to slide or attempt to avoid the play.

Why do you not want this runner to slide? Do you want him to run full speed through second base and continue to third because he can't assume that he will be out at second? I think you are very confused. You seem to be thinking that there are people here who want the runner to slide into second base at all times. Where did you get the idea that someone wanted R1 to slide into second base when the ball gets through the infield?

[NIump50]

Originally Posted by David B

Guys are cracking me up. I'll have to research the last time I've seen a kid with brain damage from a throw in the infield.

That's why we wear helmets - its called baseball, and sometimes its a rough game.

Helmets won't help when a hard throw from F4 catches the runner between the eyes at 6'

Originally Posted by David B

Kids get hit by throws all the time - the point is that we are officials. Our job is to call the rules, not protect the players from injury.

Many rules, especially in Fed, are safety rules. Therefore if we call the rules correctly we are doing our part in maintaining safety and preventing injury.

Originally Posted by David B

y rule, the player that wants to run to second instead of sliding has the right to do that without interference being called simply because he was standing up.

That's the debate at the moment. Some say by rule he does not have that right if it alters the play.

Originally Posted by David B

Our job as umpires is to make a judgement on whether there was interference or not. (And that is very very seldom going to be the result)

I agree, most kids have enough sense to get out of the way

Originally Posted by David B

Over 28 years of calling baseball and i dont' have one mention in my journal of a kid being hurt by a throw from f4 or f6 on the DP. Seen a lot of close ones, but that's what makes it such a great game.

So baseball is like NASCAR. The closer a player gets to serious injury the greater the game?
For 20 of your 28 years there was no FPSR, now there is and the debate is not how many times it will or could happen, the debate is if it does happen what is the call. I say again, IMO FPSR is for the the runners safety as well as the fielders, therefore I interpret that runner must get out of the way.
The play is in front of him. Sliding or veering to avoid the relay throw is not a hardship. It's different from what baseball was for many years, but it is what it is.
Some old dogs might have to learn a new trick.

[Bainer]

Originally Posted by LDUB

You forgot failing to slide and altering the play.

Those are two different things- I can not slide and not alter the play, OR, I can slide AND alter the play. Altering the play has nothing to do with sliding or not.

Originally Posted by LDUB

No one has said anything about forcing runners to slide. No one has said that if the runner does not slide that it is interference. What has been said is that the runner either has to slide or attempt to avoid the play.

Look back at the thread. At least three people have suggested that failure to slide should be considered interference.

Originally Posted by LDUB

Why do you not want this runner to slide? Do you want him to run full speed through second base and continue to third because he can't assume that he will be out at second? I think you are very confused.

At no point did I say I didn't want him to slide. I feel that like catching bare-handed or switch-hitting, sliding is a strategy call that should be made by coaches and players, not umpires. I couldn't care less if a player slides ir not- but I do not think it's right to mandate a slide in any situation. If a player can go into second standing up without committing rulebook interference, more power to him. I'm not sonfused- I just haven't drank the interference koolaid.

Originally Posted by LDUB

You seem to be thinking that there are people here who want the runner to slide into second base at all times. Where did you get the idea that someone wanted R1 to slide into second base when the ball gets through the infield?.

There ARE people here who want the runner to slide into second at all times- I've read their posts. No one suggested R1 slide into second when the ball gets through, but if you mandate a slide at second, people will be sliding in on blown plays.

Look, I'm pro rule book, and beyond that, I'm pro league rules. If a league wants to implement a rule- great, I'll call it. But until then, game on.


Bainer.

[SAump]

Major point of emphasis every year from NCAA on down.

What am I missing?
a) Runner must clear the baseline by veering away from a possible play.
b) Runner doesn't slide because he can stop on a dime.
c) Runner doesn't slide to avoid leaving skid marks.
d) Runner intends to go around throw after he touches second base.

[DG]

I hate to do it but I am going to agree with CoachJM on this. His argument is eloquent and convincing. Rumble's ruling in 1998, and Situation 19 in the 2006 Interpretations indicate that FED wants this called.

"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)"

This suggests that being less than half-way when struck is not interference so one could surmise that being more than half-way is. The runner has at least as much time to make a slight adjustment in his path as the pivot man has to make a slight adjustment to his throw. If FED wants safety then runners should move over when they can clearly see they are out on a FP.

PU should be watching the runner, not 2B, to see if there is a FPSR violation. BU has the play at 2B, and then the play at 1B.

I don't recall ever having this happen, but if it does, I will be ready for the discussion, if one arises.