Help! Rules 5.09(f), 7.08(f), and 7.09(m)

[David B]

Originally Posted by Saltydog

I thought the reason behind this ruling was to penalize the offense if they 'interfered' with the ball while defense had a chance to play it? In the NCAA case stated, and assuming it was a well hit ball, it appears that neither F3 nor F4, (though rudgment regarding as to IF F4 would have), met the '"through the legs of or within the immediate reach of" the fielder criteria. Unless, F9 was really on his toes, it seems R1 clearly would have reached 2B and R3 home. To call R1 out and send R3 back seems to give an advantage to the defense that wasn't there before. I'm looking primarily at reason and rationale here, vice rule interpretation.

On a separate note; Dave, your use of 'immediate reach' here; is this the standard 'step and grab'?

SD

That's correct.

Now if you really want to confuse the issue involve the pitcher getting hit by the batted ball first and go from there, (but that's another thread)

Thanks
DAvid

[mcrowder]

Actually, the "reason" or intent of the rule differs by association. In some, it is interference to be hit by a batted ball unless it was unavoidable (a fielder in front of him that either SHOULD have fielded the ball or blocked the runner's ability to see that the ball was coming), but in others it's interference just to be hit by the ball at all.

[David B]

Originally Posted by mcrowder

Actually, the "reason" or intent of the rule differs by association. In some, it is interference to be hit by a batted ball unless it was unavoidable (a fielder in front of him that either SHOULD have fielded the ball or blocked the runner's ability to see that the ball was coming), but in others it's interference just to be hit by the ball at all.

Differes by association? Haven't come across that in my many travels around the country.

I've always seen this called as Dave stated above, this is simply not a hard rule to apply.

It simply involves a little judgement by the umpire.

Thansk
David

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by David B

Differes by association? Haven't come across that in my many travels around the country.

I've always seen this called as Dave stated above, this is simply not a hard rule to apply.

It simply involves a little judgement by the umpire.

Thansk
David

Yes, differs by association. Differs by ruleset. NCAA rules are different from FED, which are different from OBR, etc.

[ggk]

thanks for the insight.
can someone cite the applicable rule in FED, NCAA and OBR ?

while I am on board with Dave's interpretation, I am having a tough time convincing any of my recent partners that this is the correct ruling. they all seem to want to use a very liberal use of the idea of the ball "passing" a fielder and no one else having a chance to make a play. in their minds the ball could be 10- 20 ft to the right of the 1st baseman and if the 2nd baseman cannot make a play (ie. he is covering 2nd on an attempted steal) the runner is not out if he is hit.

thanks.

[Dave Hensley]

Originally Posted by ggk

thanks for the insight.
can someone cite the applicable rule in FED, NCAA and OBR ?

while I am on board with Dave's interpretation, I am having a tough time convincing any of my recent partners that this is the correct ruling. they all seem to want to use a very liberal use of the idea of the ball "passing" a fielder and no one else having a chance to make a play. in their minds the ball could be 10- 20 ft to the right of the 1st baseman and if the 2nd baseman cannot make a play (ie. he is covering 2nd on an attempted steal) the runner is not out if he is hit.

thanks.

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."

[David B]

Originally Posted by ggk

thanks for the insight.
can someone cite the applicable rule in FED, NCAA and OBR ?

while I am on board with Dave's interpretation, I am having a tough time convincing any of my recent partners that this is the correct ruling. they all seem to want to use a very liberal use of the idea of the ball "passing" a fielder and no one else having a chance to make a play. in their minds the ball could be 10- 20 ft to the right of the 1st baseman and if the 2nd baseman cannot make a play (ie. he is covering 2nd on an attempted steal) the runner is not out if he is hit.

thanks.

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 runner is out if a ball hits him after passing fielder but another fielder can make a play.

For NCAA a runner is NOT out if the runner is hit after the passes a fielder period.

And then of course at all levels if a batted ball is touched 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

[Sky Popper]

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 runner is out if a ball hits him after passing fielder but another fielder can make a play.

For NCAA a runner is NOT out if the runner is hit after the passes a fielder period.

And then of course at all levels if a batted ball is touched 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

[Rich]

Originally Posted by ggk

thanks for the insight.
can someone cite the applicable rule in FED, NCAA and OBR ?

while I am on board with Dave's interpretation, I am having a tough time convincing any of my recent partners that this is the correct ruling. they all seem to want to use a very liberal use of the idea of the ball "passing" a fielder and no one else having a chance to make a play. in their minds the ball could be 10- 20 ft to the right of the 1st baseman and if the 2nd baseman cannot make a play (ie. he is covering 2nd on an attempted steal) the runner is not out if he is hit.

thanks.

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.