runner struck by thrown ball

[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.

[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.

[UMP25]

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.

Huh??? Because it is a thrown ball situation, said runner cannot be out for interference unless said interference was intentional.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by UMP25

Huh??? Because it is a thrown ball situation, said runner cannot be out for interference unless said interference was intentional.

WE HAVE A WINNER!

[LDUB]

Originally Posted by UMP25

Huh??? Because it is a thrown ball situation, said runner cannot be out for interference unless said interference was intentional.

You and David seem to think alike. Last time I checked, the rules regarding interference and the penalty for the interference were different on force plays. Here is what I said to David:

I figured it out what you are doing. You are completly ignoring the FPSR. You are trying to call simple interference with a thrown ball. That does require intent, but the FPSR is different. The FPSR does not require intent. It is interference if the runner does not slide and either makes contact with the fielder or alters the play. There is no saying the runner didn't mean to interfere. Either the runner interfered or he didn't.

Originally Posted by UMP25

All this gibberish about NFHS rules--and many of my peers wonder why I detest high school ball.

You are aware that the FPSR is exactly the same in the NCAA rulebook as the NF rulebook, right?

[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!