runner struck by thrown ball

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by NIump50

You obviously never played 2nd base.

I have played every position in baseball except pitcher, which I tried once and was really bad at it. I have played baseball since I was a small child, all the way adult baseball. I played Pony, Colt and Thoroughbred (now called Palomino), instead of HS ball, because I played Varsity Golf in high school. I was a Physical Education major in college, and was proficient in 12 sports to at least the intermediate level.

[NIump50]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

I have played every position in baseball except pitcher, which I tried once and was really bad at it. I have played baseball since I was a small child, all the way adult baseball. I played Pony, Colt and Thoroughbred (now called Palomino), instead on HS ball, because I played Varsity Golf in high school. I was a Physical Education major in college, and was proficient in 12 sports to at least the intermediate level.

I was not intending to impune your athletic prowess. Nor was I refferring to any of the other 11 sports.
I stand corrected, you played 2nd.
I guess I'd have to say there is a difference in playing 2nd and intimately knowing the position.
In my experience, F4s and F6s are not taught to adjust their throw to avoid the runner. If there is a coach that does promote this then I think he needs to be a croquet coach, not baseball.

All it takes is one runner to get beaned on the relay and I'll guarantee you all other runners the rest of the game will veer off or slide.
I think FPSR is trying to avoid the first one

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by NIump50

All it takes is one runner to get beaned on the relay and I'll guarantee you all other runners the rest of the game will veer off or slide.
I think FPSR is trying to avoid the first one

Yes, that is what is supposed to happen. The coaches should be telling the runners to slide or veer off. Common sense and self preservation should tell a runner this, and in most cases, that is what happens.

I did not see the play in question, so I don't know what led up the the runner being hit with the ball. Perhaps the defense muffed the play at the beginning and the outcome of the play at 2nd was still in doubt.

I am saying that the rule as written does not specifically address any "must slide" or "veer off" language. Perhaps if they added "must slide or veer off" to the rule, we wouldn't need to have a lengthy thread arguing about it.

[gsf23]

I'm still trying to figure out how a runner that is six feet from second base gets plunked in the thigh with a ball that is supposed to go all the way to first. Is the runner 7 feet tall? Is the second baseman only three-feet tall? Was he throwing underhand? It reads to me like the second baseman intentionally threw at the runners legs to try to get the interference call.

Christ if he got hit in the thigh standing up, he probably would have taken it to the face if he did slide, maybe that is why he didn't.

[NIump50]

Originally Posted by gsf23

I'm still trying to figure out how a runner that is six feet from second base gets plunked in the thigh with a ball that is supposed to go all the way to first. Is the runner 7 feet tall? Is the second baseman only three-feet tall? Was he throwing underhand? It reads to me like the second baseman intentionally threw at the runners legs to try to get the interference call.

Now we're really getting into pure conjecture.
Maybe at the last second F4 decided he didn't want to kill R1 and threw down to avoid beaning him in the head.
Maybe the throw to F4 was low and he was firing sidearm.
Maybe F4 tried stopping his throwing motion, again to avoid killing R1 and the ball came out of his hand and hit the thigh.
Maybe it was just a bad throw, but directly in line with F3.

Originally Posted by gsf23

Christ if he got hit in the thigh standing up, he probably would have taken it to the face if he did slide, maybe that is why he didn't.

I want this kid on my team.
If he has the ability to react to a ball thrown 10' away while running directly toward the thrower then he's superman.
Imagine what he could do to a ball thrown from 60' and him standing still.

[LDUB]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

I am saying that the rule as written does not specifically address any "must slide" or "veer off" language. Perhaps if they added "must slide or veer off" to the rule, we wouldn't need to have a lengthy thread arguing about it.

Actually I quoted the rule earlier in this thread and it says that the runner must on a force play either slide legally or attempt to avoid the play (veer off). Yet you still feel the need to have a lengthy discussion about it. I even posted an NFHS interp in which a runner who went in standing up and was hit with a throw and called for interference.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by LDUB

Actually I quoted the rule earlier in this thread and it says that the runner must on a force play either slide legally or attempt to avoid the play (veer off). Yet you still feel the need to have a lengthy discussion about it. I even posted an NFHS interp in which a runner who went in standing up and was hit with a throw and called for interference.

And once again, I maintain that this is referring to the play at second base, and avoiding the play at second base only, and does not refer to any following play after the force out. You cannot assume a double-play. The runner is required to either slide (to avoid contact with the fielder) or attempt to avoid the play at second base, not a subsequent throw.

If the rules makers want to include the relay throw to first in their interpretation, then they should spell it out clearly. Oh, I forgot, FED doesn't do clearly very well.

Once again, I'm not the only one that holds this opinion.

[LDUB]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

And once again, I maintain that this is referring to the play at second base, and avoiding the play at second base only, and does not refer to any following play after the force out. You cannot assume a double-play. The runner is required to either slide (to avoid contact with the fielder) or attempt to avoid the play at second base, not a subsequent throw.

If the rules makers want to include the relay throw to first in their interpretation, then they should spell it out clearly. Oh, I forgot, FED doesn't do clearly very well.

Once again, I'm not the only one that holds this opinion.

I posted this earlier: "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." How is that not clear enough for you?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by LDUB

I posted this earlier: "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." How is that not clear enough for you?

It's clear, Luke. But, does it (still) apply? Where did Brad make that quote?Does 2006 Situation 19 supercede whatever Brad said, or does it "change" it so that a runner who is less than 1/2 way to second is not guilty of interference while a runner who is more than 1/2 way is guilty?

(These types of questions apply to many of the Fed's attempts to clarify / change / supercede rulings.)

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by LDUB

I posted this earlier: "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." How is that not clear enough for you?

Well, I like what Carl Childress wrote about Rumble's interpretation:

"The Rumble ruling is consistent and illuminating, therefore helpful. But it is not definitive, for it leaves and important question unanswered: How close does the runner have to be to the "forced" base before the umpire rules interference? I repeat my recommendations from the last few editions: Let umpire judgment carry the day. If the runner is "close" and has time to avoid the throw (get down or run away), then it's interference. Otherwise, E4. After all, plays like that are why they hire umpires. I hasten to point out that Rumbles's ruling from 1998 has had six years to make its way into the casebook -- without success."

Now it is seven years, BTW, as this is from the 2005 BRD.