runner struck by thrown ball

[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

[BigUmp56]

Bear with me, Jeff. I understand that in an OBR game if a runner who has been out out continues to advance, he shall not by that act alone considered to have interfered. I thought that 8-4-2(b) by intent stated that the runner had to either slide or veer away from the throwing lane of a fielder in the immediate act of making a play on another runner.


Tim.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Tim,

I don't think the runner has to slide or veer away from the throw. He is not required to slide on a force play, but if he does elect to slide, the slide must be legal. See 8-4-2, EXCEPTIONS AND NOTES. The runner in this case was 6-10 feet from the base and may well have been just about to slide. He still must intentionally interfere with the throw in order to have interfered. The runner would be out if he: a) slides ilegally and causes illegal contact (with the fielder) and/or, b) illegally alters the actions of a fielder in the immediate act of making a play. Getting hit with a thrown ball does not constitute these two things. See the example in Case Book 8-4-2 SIT. R (2005 book), while not the same exact play, still illustrates the point.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BigUmp56

Bear with me, Jeff. I understand that in an OBR game if a runner who has been out out continues to advance, he shall not by that act alone considered to have interfered. I thought that 8-4-2(b) by intent stated that the runner had to either slide or veer away from the throwing lane of a fielder in the immediate act of making a play on another runner.

Sorry I do not have my rulebooks right here at this moment. I do know that you cannot interfere with a fielder making any play. Now that the very strict interpretation of the rules and I do understand how people can draw a conclusion. 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.

Peace

[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.

[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!

[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]

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.

[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.