Both phrases originate, to my knowledge, from Jim Evans, and my understanding is yes, they are pretty much synonymous, although in my mind "immediate reach" might be a tad shorter distance than "step and a reach."

You've already cited the relevant rules from the OBR. Here is a blurb from the MLB Umpire Manual that supports the interpretation I posted previously:

...if a batted ball goes through or by an infielder (other than the pitcher) without touching the fielder and then strikes a runner immediately behind the infielder, the umpire must then determine if another infielder has a chance to make a play on the ball. If the umpire determines another infielder does have a chance, the runner is out. If the umpire determines another infielder does not have a chance, the ball is alive and in play.

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.

This passage is followed by a number of plays and rulings to illustrate the interpretation. The plays clearly refute the idea that "through or by" refers to the distance the fielder is from home plate, compared to the distance the runner is, also known in the past, at least on the Internet, as "the string theory." The MLB Umpire Manual plays very unambiguously support the Evans definition of "through or by" to mean through the legs of or within the immediate reach.

I've not done extensive research on comparable NCAA or FED rulings, but my recollection in discussing this issue in the past is that NCAA is parallel to the pro interpretation, and FED is ambiguous, as there is (or was at some point) a FED caseplay that seemed to endorse the "string theory" definition of "through or by."

Don't confuse the issue too much though
 

Again this is not a difficult rule. I checked by BRD to make sure I didn't miss a new interpretation but FED and OBR are in sync with this rule.

FED 8-4-2k and OBR 7.09m

NCAA in 2004 made a slight change as the BRD notes "to clarify and be consistent with the professional rules".

So basically in FED or OBR the <b>runner is out</b> if a ball hits him after passing fielder but another fielder can make a play.

For NCAA a <b>runner is NOT out</b> if the runner is hit after the passes a fielder period.

And then of course at all levels if a batted ball is <b>touched</b> by a fielder and then hits the runner, the runner is never out (unless it is intentional interference; however he must avoid a second fielder making a play on a batted ball.

So in your play, once the ball passes the fielder, he is okay and not going to be out since F4 did not have a play on the ball.

Thanks
David

Well, that gives a huge advantage to the offense if the ball hits the runner and bounces well out of reach of any other fielder.

It's pretty clear from all the discussions and citations thrown through the series of tubes known as the Internet the past 10 years that the offense has responsibility to avoid being hit by a batted ball except under specific circumstances. What is being posted by Dave Hensley and Bob Jenkins is the most current, AFAIK.

Quote:

Originally Posted by David B Again this is not a difficult rule. I checked by BRD to make sure I didn't miss a new interpretation but FED and OBR are in sync with this rule. FED 8-4-2k and OBR 7.09m NCAA in 2004 made a slight change as the BRD notes "to clarify and be consistent with the professional rules". So basically in FED or OBR the <b>runner is out</b> if a ball hits him after passing fielder but another fielder can make a play. For NCAA a <b>runner is NOT out</b> if the runner is hit after the passes a fielder period. And then of course at all levels if a batted ball is <b>touched</b> by a fielder and then hits the runner, the runner is never out (unless it is intentional interference; however he must avoid a second fielder making a play on a batted ball. So in your play, once the ball passes the fielder, he is okay and not going to be out since F4 did not have a play on the ball. Thanks David

What, for you, constitutes "passes the fielder"? Can it be 20 feet away, or does it need to be in the "immediate vicinity" as Dave H. stated? Are you endorsing the "string theory"?

Thanks,

Dennis

I'm using common sense
 

I would guess I would put this more of a string theory, but in reality, passed the fielder means ... "passed the fielder"

He's diving to his right, once the ball is passed his glove, its passed the fielder.

He moving to his right, same thing.

The runner is always either going to be behind the fielder or in front of the fielder, so if he's behind the fielder he's safe.

Especially since a deflected ball is not going to ever cause an out on the runner.

Hope that helps
Thanks
David

Quote:

Originally Posted by David B I would guess I would put this more of a string theory, but in reality, passed the fielder means ... "passed the fielder" He's diving to his right, once the ball is passed his glove, its passed the fielder. He moving to his right, same thing. The runner is always either going to be behind the fielder or in front of the fielder, so if he's behind the fielder he's safe. Especially since a deflected ball is not going to ever cause an out on the runner. Hope that helps Thanks David

Isn't the intent of the rule that the fielder have a chance to make a play on the ball? If "pass by" is not dependent on the distance between the fielder and the ball, why differentiate between "through" and "pass by"? Wouldn't "through" be just another way of passing by the fielder, so long as he doesn't touch it? Also, if the runner can be anywhere behind the fielder, why would the rule specify that the runner be "immediately behind" the fielder? It seems that "immediately behind" endorses the "in the vicinity of" interpretation.

Thanks,

Dennis

I too find David B.'s explanations ambiguous; I'm not sure he realizes that the true crux of the biscuit is the correct interpretation of "through or by." There are two competing definitions - the Evans "through the legs of or within the immediate reach," and the "string theory" which originated with Nick Bremigan at the professional school he taught at way back when, which applies a very liberal interpretation to the concept of "passes," explained by Jim Booth a few years ago as if you tied a string between all the infielders, then if the ball went past that string and then hit a runner, you should NOT call the runner out.

The string theory is NOT the current interpretation for pro baseball. The last modern authoritative adherent to the string theory was Rick Roder. His position was understandable, as he was a protege of Nick Bremigan. A couple of years ago when this issue flared up on the Internet and caught his (Roder's) attention, he used his position with the World Umpires Association to poll current active MLB umpires and he came back with a clear consensus for the Evans interpretation. He graciously conceded that his, and Bremigan's, interpretation had obviously been obsoleted by custom and practice, and he said he would incorporate the current interpretation in the next edition of his Rules of Baseball book. I don't own the book, so I don't know if he made the change or not. I do know that he's on board with the Evans interpretation.

Here's the simple, simple, way to enforce the rules correctly. A runner hit by an undeflected batted ball is out, period, unless it is clear he had no opportunity to avoid being hit because a fielder in front of him SHOULD HAVE made a play on the ball but didn't.

David B. should test his understanding of the current interpretation with these two caseplays:

Play 1: R2 and R3, all infielders are playing in on the grass because the game situation requires them to keep R3 from scoring at all cost. Ground ball up the middle that hits R2 on the base.

Play 2: R2 and R3, Barry Bonds at the plate and the defense has the Bonds shift on. No infielder is stationed on the 3rd base side of the infield. Bonds slices a ground ball through where F6 normally plays, and R2, advancing to 3B, is hit by the batted ball.

The correct call in both cases is "time, R2 is out, R3 returns to 3B." Adherents of the string theory will leave the ball live in Play 1 because one or more infielder is closer to the plate than R2 is, therefore the ball has "passed" an infielder when it hit R2. They will leave the ball live in Play 2 because R2 was hit when no other infielder had a play on the ball.

Both "string theory" interpretations are wrong, in my opinion simply by rule, but certainly when you also layer in the operative Evans (and MLBUM) interpretation of "through or by."

Hope that helps.

excellent post by hensley. his explanation leaves little room for argument.

good explaination
 

That's a good explaination of the string theory, I was unaware that it was between infielders which is kind of crazy.

I was thinking of the the string theory as between the fielder making the play and the base to which a runner might be advancing.

As I stated above, the BRD in my opinion has a very clear description of the rule interpretations and your explaination above describes very well the question about "through or by"

Thanks
David

I'm not kicking this dead horse, but
 

Dave H.,
I'm 'good-to-go' on the ruling... in fact, this has been a great primer on this topic which has been cut and pasted for future use:) However, I still don't understand the 'why'. ie. If F3 missed the ball and F4 had opportunity, but the ball hit R1... then an advantage was taken from the defense. So I can see the 'why' here. But what is the 'why' rational for the ruling when the defense isn't disavantaged? Ie. Your 'Bonds shift' example. Geez in that case the runner may have actually helped the defense by possibly keeping the ball in the infield.
Just tying to make (common) sense of the ruling. (If the 'best answer' is "just because", well, I can deal with that too!)
SD

As a newcomer to this website, I'd like to thank everyone for an informative, lively and respectful discussion.

In my original post the first sentence read, "What does 'through, or by' mean?", and in Dave Hensley's excellent wrap of the dialogue from earlier today his first sentence read, in part, ". . . the true crux of the biscuit is the correct interpretation of 'through, or by'".

We all spent four days and almost thirty posts showing how useful and interesting it can be to weave our way through an interpretation to come to an understanding of all the issues involved. Whether or not we come to complete consensus, we can understand each other's position and - if we want to - move on to what Saltydog brought up above, i.e. the "why" (or does it make sense) stage.


Take care all,

Dennis

My speculation, and this is purely my opinion and not supported by anything authoritative, is that the rulesmakers believe the principle that a runner must avoid interfering with the course of a batted ball - even when the defense doesn't have an imminent play - is necessary to keep baseball from turning in to something resembling soccer, in which runners might find ways to contact batted balls and alter their course with an advantage gained for the offense.

Just my theory.