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

[Sky Popper]

What does "through, or by, an infielder" mean? If an infielder reaches for a batted ball but has no legitimate play on it (using ordinary effort) and it strikes a runner who is not immediately behind the fielder, is the runner out? Or does any effort by an infielder who is positioned in front of the baseline to field the ball mean that the ball is live and the runner is not out?

Situation was: 10 year old Little League tournament. Runner on 1st, nobody out. 1st baseman playing in front of the runner. Batter hit the ball between 1st and 2nd. First baseman took a few steps to his right and reached toward the ball but had no play on it. It passed to his right by a couple of feet. It then struck the runner, who was the same distance to the right of the first baseman. The second baseman had no play on the ball. The umpire called the runner out and gave the batter/runner first base. A dad in the stands, who also umpires ("I've been doing this for 20 years") objected, saying the ball should have been live because the first baseman attempeted to field it ans was positioned in front of the runner. He admitted that the fielder had no legit chance to actually field the ball, but that it didn't matter because he had attempted to field it by moving toward and reaching for it. I thought the ump made the right call. Am I wrong?

[bossman72]

MLBUM seems to cover your play and the runner should have been called safe and live ball


(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.

[Sky Popper]

[I](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.
Question - How to define "just outside"? Is it a judgement call about whether or not the fielder has a chance to field the ball, or is that irrelevent? Also, what does "immediately behind" the fielder mean?

[David B]

Originally Posted by Sky Popper

[I](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.

Question - How to define "just outside"? Is it a judgement call about whether or not the fielder has a chance to field the ball, or is that irrelevent? Also, what does "immediately behind" the fielder mean?

Remember we're talking about interfering with a batted ball here. Since the fielder has no chance to field the ball or even if he tried to field it and it then hits the runner once the ball is past F3, then the umpire simply must decide if F4 has a chance on the play.

Unless he's playing really deep in the hole toward first base usually the answer would be no and the runner would be okay.

so yes, its a judgement call by the umpire.

thanks
David

[Sky Popper]

Originally Posted by David B

Remember we're talking about interfering with a batted ball here. Since the fielder has no chance to field the ball or even if he tried to field it and it then hits the runner once the ball is past F3, then the umpire simply must decide if F4 has a chance on the play.

Unless he's playing really deep in the hole toward first base usually the answer would be no and the runner would be okay.

so yes, its a judgement call by the umpire.

thanks
David

Sorry, I'm still confused. If F3 has no chance to field the ball, even if he tries to, and F4 has no chance on the play, is the runner okay or out, and I'm still not sure what "immediately behind" means.

Thanks for your patience,

Dennis

[ggk]

there was much debate about a similar post a few weeks ago.

a ncaa rules question started that debate. here it is:

R3 and R1. The first baseman, who is playing in front of the runner, dives to his right on a batted ground ball but cannot make the play. The second baseman is squeezing the middle of the infield and has no play on the ball. The batted ball strikes the runner, who started from a position behind the first baseman.

in this situation i thought that runner was not in jeopardy. but per NCAA, the runner is out. batter gets first R3 stays at 3rd. from what i can tell, strict interpretation of the rule only protects the runner who is hit by ball that practically goes right thru a fielder and hits the runner directly behind him - given that there is not another fielder behind him who has a chance to make a play on the ball. i believe the rationale hear is that the runner is screened in this situation and should not be responsible for avoiding the ball. if a ball passes by a fielder on either side and then hits the runner - runner is out. sounds tough. but that is how ncaa interprets the rule.

[Dave Hensley]

Originally Posted by Sky Popper

What does "through, or by, an infielder" mean? If an infielder reaches for a batted ball but has no legitimate play on it (using ordinary effort) and it strikes a runner who is not immediately behind the fielder, is the runner out? Or does any effort by an infielder who is positioned in front of the baseline to field the ball mean that the ball is live and the runner is not out?

Situation was: 10 year old Little League tournament. Runner on 1st, nobody out. 1st baseman playing in front of the runner. Batter hit the ball between 1st and 2nd. First baseman took a few steps to his right and reached toward the ball but had no play on it. It passed to his right by a couple of feet. It then struck the runner, who was the same distance to the right of the first baseman. The second baseman had no play on the ball. The umpire called the runner out and gave the batter/runner first base. A dad in the stands, who also umpires ("I've been doing this for 20 years") objected, saying the ball should have been live because the first baseman attempeted to field it ans was positioned in front of the runner. He admitted that the fielder had no legit chance to actually field the ball, but that it didn't matter because he had attempted to field it by moving toward and reaching for it. I thought the ump made the right call. Am I wrong?

As evidenced by answers you're receiving, this relatively simple horse of a rule continues to be turned into a zebra by a lot of folks.

"Through or by" means, by professional interpretation, "through the legs of or within the immediate reach of" the fielder. If a ball goes "through or by" the fielder, AND another fielder does not have a play on the ball, then and only then is the runner NOT out.

In any other circumstance, (other than a deflected ball) the runner hit by a batted ball is OUT. If, in your situation, the ball was judged to have NOT been "through or by" using the definition I've stated, then the runner is OUT. No further conditions apply.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Dave Hensley

As evidenced by answers you're receiving, this relatively simple horse of a rule continues to be turned into a zebra by a lot of folks.

"Through or by" means, by professional interpretation, "through the legs of or within the immediate reach of" the fielder. If a ball goes "through or by" the fielder, AND another fielder does not have a play on the ball, then and only then is the runner NOT out.

In any other circumstance, (other than a deflected ball) the runner hit by a batted ball is OUT. If, in your situation, the ball was judged to have NOT been "through or by" using the definition I've stated, then the runner is OUT. No further conditions apply.

I agree with Dave. The rationale for the rule is that the runner is out when hit by the batted ball, unless he reasonably could expect the ball to be fielded before it got to him (i.e., the ball went through or immediately by the fielder an no other fielder had a play, or the ball was deflected).

[LMan]

This thread is a perfect example/counterpoint to the "I just need the official rulebook to umpire baseball" guys.

[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

[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.