ball hits runner

[Justme]

Originally Posted by BigUmp56

There are many things that are not black and white in the rule book alone. While it's true that the rule book does say passes a fielder, it also says it must pass "immediately" back of the fielder. You'll find that Evans, and Roder define "immediately" exactly as Dave and Rich have. That would be within a step and a reach.


Tim.

Just for my education, where do the OBR's say "it must pass "immediately" back of the fielder"?

Wait I found it...

7.09
(k)A fair ball touches him on fair territory before touching a fielder. If a fair ball goes through, or by, an infielder, and touches a runner immediately back of him, or touches the runner after having been deflected by a fielder, the umpire shall not declare the runner out for being touched by a batted ball. In making such decision the umpire must be convinced that the ball passed through, or by, the fielder, and that no other infielder had the chance to make a play on the ball. If, in the judgment of the umpire, the runner deliberately and intentionally kicks such a batted ball on which the infielder has missed a play, then the runner shall be called out for interference.
PENALTY FOR INTERFERENCE: The runner is out and the ball is dead.

Consider this... if the fielder dives for the ball and misses the ball (distance of miss is unknown) and his dive carries his body in front of the runner then the fielder is now "immediately" back of him. I think that the key questions here are "Did another infielder have a chance to make a play?" or "Did the runner deliberately and intentionally kick the ball on which the infielder has missed a play?" It would seem that interference would be a tough call to make if the infielder dove for the ball, missed it by a foot or two and then the runner was hit by the ball when no other infielder could have made a play. JMHO

[BigUmp56]

Originally Posted by Justme

Just for my education, where do the OBR's say "it must pass "immediately" back of the fielder"?

7.09(m) It is interference by a batter or a runner when a fair ball touches him on fair territory before touching a fielder. If a fair ball goes through or by an infielder, and touches a runner immediately back of him, or touches the runner after having been deflected by a fielder, the umpire shall not declare the runner out for being touched by a batted ball. In making such decision the umpire must be convinced that the ball passed through, or by, the fielder, and that no other infielder had the chance to make a play on the ball. If, in the judgment of the umpire, the runner deliberately and intentionally kicks such a batted ball on which the infielder has missed a play, then the runner shall be called out for interference.


Tim.

[pdxblue]

You see, I like how ALL of this talks about a runner/fielder in proximity of each other, but DOES NOT deal with the actual play described.

There is NOWHERE, and NOTHING in the rule book that supports the ruling the way eofficial describes it!

Runner one step off of second base, infielders are playing in, and a line drive batted ball hits the runner. You are going to call him out?

You better cock your ejection finger!

[BigUmp56]

Originally Posted by pdxblue

You see, I like how ALL of this talks about a runner/fielder in proximity of each other, but DOES NOT deal with the actual play described.

There is NOWHERE, and NOTHING in the rule book that supports the ruling the way eofficial describes it!

Runner one step off of second base, infielders are playing in, and a line drive batted ball hits the runner. You are going to call him out?

You better cock your ejection finger!

I understand what you're saying, and here's a play from the J/R that somewhat supports your position.

R3 and R1, first baseman is playing "in" (several feet in front of R1, who is leading off). The batter hits a hard grounder to the first baseman's right. He cannot touch it and it strikes R1. The second baseman had no chance of fielding the ball: no interference The ball is live.


I think the key in the eofficials answer verses the Roder ruling is all in how we envision the play. The Roder ruling mentions that the priveledged fielder cannot touch it. The eofficials ruling must have the fielder still being able to reach the ball although it says he cannot make the play.


Then this is what's found in the MLBUM.


(9) Runner on first base, first baseman positioned in front of the runner. Batter hits a ground ball just outside the reach of the first baseman as the first baseman dives to his right. The ball then strikes the runner.

Ruling: In this play the ball is considered having passed by an infielder. The umpire must now judge if another infielder has the chance to make a play on the ball. If the umpire judges yes, then the runner is declared out. If the umpire judges no, the ball is alive and in play.


Tim.

[pdxblue]

Re-read the scenario! It just says "dives to his right, but cannot make the play". There is STILL nothing in the rule book that would support interference.

eofficial simply got this wrong. Not sure why. But the rule book is pretty clear that once the ball passes a fielder, and no other fielder has a chance to make a play, it is NOT interference if that ball touches a runner. Nothing about "within a step", or "within reach" of a fielder.

[BigUmp56]

There's no need to shout. I read the initial play closely enough that I don't need to re-visit it again, thank you very much. You'll find that we're not in as much disagreement as you might think. I simply have allowed for the possibility that whoever authored the play had the ball still within reach of the fielder when the runner was struck.


Tim.

[UmpJM]

Gentlemen,

The eofficial's question is somewhat ambiguous, because it never says how "close" the ball was to the diving F3 - only that he "..cannot make the play". It also is not clear as to whether the runner was "immediately" behind the F3 at the time he was struck by the fair batted ball.

However, the "point" of the question, as I read it, is that the runner is NOT exempt from interference because he is "farther away from home plate than the infielder". He is only exempt if he is immediately back of the infielder and the ball goes through or by that infielder.

From the MLBUM we have:

...
The interpretation to be made with regard to the phrase "a fair ball goes through, or by, an infielder, and touches a runner immediately back of him" (Official Baseball Rules 7.09(m) and 5.09(f)) is that this refers to a ball that passes through the infielder's legs, or by his immediate vicinity, and strikes a runner directly behind the infielder. ...

(5) Runners on first and second, both runners stealing. Batter shows bunt, the first and third basemen move in, and the shortstop moves to cover third. The batter swings at the last minute and hits a ground ball in the direction of the shortstop position. However, the shortstop has moved to cover third base, and no one is in position to field the ball. The ground ball strikes the
runner advancing from second base.
Ruling: Runner from second is declared out for being struck by a batted ball. The batter-runner is placed at first base. The ball is not considered to have gone through or by an infielder in this play.

This is entirely consistent with the text of the rules (most clearly stated in 5.09(f)) and what J/R and JEA say is the proper way to rule. If you choose to rule in a way that is contrary to what the MLBUM, JEA, & J/R say, you would be wrong. If you do it in a game where I am coaching (and it disadvantages my team) I will protest in a heartbeat.

JM

[mbyron]

I was taught to think of runner interference on a batted ball this way: the burden is ALWAYS on the runner to stay out of the path of a batted ball, and his failure to do so is interference in EVERY case but one, regardless of intention. The one exception is the ball that goes "through" a fielder (essentially a misplayed ball) that hits a runner directly behind him.

Given the citation from JM, you will never see an interference "non-call" based on the fact that no infielder could make the play (e.g., ball hits runner behind a pulled-in infield). My understanding of the pro interpretation of 7.09(m) is that the defense in general, and not just the infielders, has a right to make a play on every batted ball without interference from the runners.

Folks can quibble all they want about what the text of the rule says; the pro interpretation of the rule is fairly - though not perfectly - clear on this point. I'm a little surprised to hear that Roder has something different: I wonder how he would respond to JM's citation.

[Justme]

Originally Posted by CoachJM

Gentlemen,

The eofficial's question is somewhat ambiguous, because it never says how "close" the ball was to the diving F3 - only that he "..cannot make the play". It also is not clear as to whether the runner was "immediately" behind the F3 at the time he was struck by the fair batted ball.

However, the "point" of the question, as I read it, is that the runner is NOT exempt from interference because he is "farther away from home plate than the infielder". He is only exempt if he is immediately back of the infielder and the ball goes through or by that infielder.

From the MLBUM we have:



This is entirely consistent with the text of the rules (most clearly stated in 5.09(f)) and what J/R and JEA say is the proper way to rule. If you choose to rule in a way that is contrary to what the MLBUM, JEA, & J/R say, you would be wrong. If you do it in a game where I am coaching (and it disadvantages my team) I will protest in a heartbeat.

JM

JM:

These are two entirely different situations.

One has the infielder making an attempt to field the ball, diving to his right. The other situation has the ball hit toward where F6 would have normally been, if he hadn't moved in for the bunt, but no infielder was there to attempt to field the ball.

Situations are as different as night and day.

Bring the protest on!

[ggk]

hey guys,

I'm glad that i am not the only one to question this ruling. thanks for the debate. i'm glad we can see some posting that stays focused on a rules question and does not deteriorate into bashing.

for whatever it is worth, i agree that the play where the runner is hit in the area that F6 has just vacated is completely different.

from the eofficial question there is no way that you could argue the F4 has a chance to make a play - "second baseman is squeezing the middle of the infield and has no play on the ball", nor can you determine exactly where R1 is when he is hit. the question states that R1 "started from a position behind the first baseman" it states that "F3 dives to his right on a batted ground ball but cannot make the play" it doesn't say that the ball was out of his reach or several feet to his right. the ball could have bounced over or under his glove when he dove. if the runner started out right behind the first baseman the logical place for him to be is still practically, if not literally right behind him as he is also moving to his right on the play.

bad question.
does anyone have a contact at eofficials.com that could help us settle this debate.
thanks again.
G

[DG]

No way this is interference. Let the protest committee decide, because they are not on my mind when making the call.

[Dave Hensley]

Originally Posted by BigUmp56

I understand what you're saying, and here's a play from the J/R that somewhat supports your position.

R3 and R1, first baseman is playing "in" (several feet in front of R1, who is leading off). The batter hits a hard grounder to the first baseman's right. He cannot touch it and it strikes R1. The second baseman had no chance of fielding the ball: no interference The ball is live.


I think the key in the eofficials answer verses the Roder ruling is all in how we envision the play. The Roder ruling mentions that the priveledged fielder cannot touch it. The eofficials ruling must have the fielder still being able to reach the ball although it says he cannot make the play.


Then this is what's found in the MLBUM.


(9) Runner on first base, first baseman positioned in front of the runner. Batter hits a ground ball just outside the reach of the first baseman as the first baseman dives to his right. The ball then strikes the runner.

Ruling: In this play the ball is considered having passed by an infielder. The umpire must now judge if another infielder has the chance to make a play on the ball. If the umpire judges yes, then the runner is declared out. If the umpire judges no, the ball is alive and in play.


Tim.

If you ask Rick Roder how he would rule today on the play you quoted from the Jaksa/Roder manual, he would tell you the runner is out, by professional interpretation.

There is a tremendous amount of history behind this particular interpretation, and I unfortunately do not have the time to detail it right now. The short story is, the "string theory" which Jaksa/Roder orginally supported was the interpretation which came from Nick Bremigan when he was chief instructor for the Brinkman-Froemming (or perhaps it's predecessor) umpire school. Meanwhile, the Evans school was teaching its umpires the alternate, and conflicting interpretation, of "through the legs of or within the immediate reach," a more restrictive interpretation that makes a runner hit by a batted ball out 98 times out of 100.

The Evans interpretation is the interpretation that became prevalent throughout professional baseball, and Rick Roder confirmed this fact by his own poll of active MLB umpires a couple of years ago. He said at the time that he would make the appropriate modification in the next edition of his book. I don't know if he did or not.

When I get home (I'm travelling at the moment) I'll look in my email archives and see if I can find specific quotes, citations, etc.

The poster who is adamantly opposing this ruling speculates that if you call a runner on 2B out when he is hit by a batted ball and the infield is playing in, you better get your ejection finger ready. In truth, the coaches, players and fans to a very, very high degree, all believe in the simple rule that when a runner is hit by a batted ball, he is out. By the Evans interpretation, this is true 99% of the time. I would submit that you would be more likely to have a tension convention if you do NOT kill the ball and call the runner out in that, and most every similar situation.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by BigUmp56

Then this is what's found in the MLBUM.

(9) Runner on first base, first baseman positioned in front of the runner. Batter hits a ground ball just outside the reach of the first baseman as the first baseman dives to his right. The ball then strikes the runner.

Ruling: In this play the ball is considered having passed by an infielder. The umpire must now judge if another infielder has the chance to make a play on the ball. If the umpire judges yes, then the runner is declared out. If the umpire judges no, the ball is alive and in play.

This is exactly how the original play reads to me, with the information provided. You can't read extra information into what is written. The ball passed F3, who dove for the ball and was at the time positioned in front of the runner. The runner, in order to have been hit, must have been directly behind the outstretched F3. F4 had no play on the ball, and neither did any of the other fielders, so the ball must be alive and in play.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by BigUmp56

I understand what you're saying, and here's a play from the J/R that somewhat supports your position.

R3 and R1, first baseman is playing "in" (several feet in front of R1, who is leading off). The batter hits a hard grounder to the first baseman's right. He cannot touch it and it strikes R1. The second baseman had no chance of fielding the ball: no interference The ball is live.


I think the key in the eofficials answer verses the Roder ruling is all in how we envision the play. The Roder ruling mentions that the priveledged fielder cannot touch it. The eofficials ruling must have the fielder still being able to reach the ball although it says he cannot make the play.


Then this is what's found in the MLBUM.


(9) Runner on first base, first baseman positioned in front of the runner. Batter hits a ground ball just outside the reach of the first baseman as the first baseman dives to his right. The ball then strikes the runner.

Ruling: In this play the ball is considered having passed by an infielder. The umpire must now judge if another infielder has the chance to make a play on the ball. If the umpire judges yes, then the runner is declared out. If the umpire judges no, the ball is alive and in play.


Tim.

This is outdated and as Dave H. has indicated, even Roder know longer holds to this ruling and has annouced so, in public postings. The Evans model is the working model in professional baseball.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by GarthB

This is outdated and as Dave H. has indicated, even Roder know longer holds to this ruling and has annouced so, in public postings. The Evans model is the working model in professional baseball.

And with good reason, too. A runner hit with a batted ball he can be expected to avoid puts the defense at a great disadvantage if the ball comes off at a bad angle.

I agree with Dave wholeheartedly -- I would be tossing people if I *didn't* call the interference.

But as is seen here, there are good umpires who disagree and professionals who used to, as well. A few case plays in the rule book dealing with this play would eliminate all the ambiguity, but I figure that will happen long after we are all dead and gone.

Heading to the Netherlands today to umpire a tournament next week. See youze when I get back.