ball hits runner

[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!