runner struck by thrown ball

[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!

[UMP25]

It took 8 pages of gobbledygook to get there, though.

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

[SanDiegoSteve]

I dislike HS ball so much that I stopped working it after 20 seasons of it, and with no possibility of higher level baseball, am happily working youth baseball exclusively for the first time ever. Other than getting the absolute crap knocked out of me every single game, it's just great!! LOL

[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?

[JRutledge]

No matter how many ways we say this, this is a judgment call plain and simple. If you want to call an runner out just for running in their running path, then go right ahead and call that. I feel the defense should do something to make a better play. Now that is my opinion and I am sticking to it.

Peace

[UmpJM]

JRutledge,

In each of my posts on this thread, I have acknowledged that there is a significant element of judgement in ruling on this (or similar) situations.

You seem to suggest (if I'm reading your posts correctly) that if the runner were to proceed directly to his base without sliding, and altered the pivot man's play - let's say by being hit by his throw to 1B - you would NOT call a violation of the FPSR. For the purpose of illustrating the point, let's assume that the forced runner was within a "body's length" of his forced to base at the time the pivot man released the throw. The pivot man was making a legitimate effort to retire the BR at 1B. The game is being played under FED (or NCAA, for that matter) rules.

If you do NOT call the R1 and the BR out, I believe you are completely ignoring the FPSR and inappropriately applying OBR criteria in ruling on the play. Why do you think differently?

JM

[David B]

Originally Posted by LDUB

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.



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

Words can be so hard sometimes, but intent is not that hard.

In determining intent, you have to look at the runners actions. A hard legal slide is fine. A runner runs through the bag, fine as long as the play is not altered.

Anything illegal is FPSR, unless the play is completed and then we ignore it.
Most of the time in games that I call this is the norm - if you call lower level games you probably see this more.

Again, in determining intent you have to recognize the level of play, the players involved, the game situation (many times this dictates the call) and etc.,

I will get my notebook out today and find the play that I referenced above about intent and contact.

Calling NCAA and FED this season, i have had to call FPSR none.

Thansk
David