what should i have called

[SanDiegoSteve]

The reason that it is 7.09(f) and not (g) is only because an entire rule was deleted this year, and all the rules move up one letter. I used to be 7.09(g), but now it is (f), but it is the same rule, nonetheless.

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by tibear

You're talking about interference and I'm talking about runner being struck by a hit ball 7.08(f).

... which IS interference.

For the double play situation, I saw this earlier this year, R1 is hit by ball with no fielder in front of him and second baseman standing there waiting to start the easy doubleplay. The umpire called dead ball and single out. After discussion with partner the decision was made that indeed a double play would be called.

Partner is a fool, and original umpire is "the fool that follows him."

I acknowledge that the letter of the rule says only one out in this situation but from my experience, everyone accepts it when an obvious easy doubleplay was broken up by the hit runner.

You acknowledge that the rule tells you to do one thing, but your defense for doing entirely the wrong thing is that "everyone accepts it?" Good god. You must live in a bizarre world of complacent coaches and incompetent umpires. No coach I know would "accept" this, and we would lose any protest on the issue.

It really scares me that you are out there umpiring, going against the rules AND KNOWING IT, and feel compelled to DEFEND your actions. Yuck.

[mbyron]

Can I summarize as follows:

1. In the OP, we judge R3 not to have intended to break up a double play, but he's hit by a fair ball. RULING: INT, dead ball, R3 out, award BR 1B, other runners advance only if forced.

2. If we judge R3 to have interfered to break up a double play; RULING: INT, dead ball, R3 out, and the next most advanced runner is out. If BR is not out on the play, award BR 1B, other runners advance only if forced. [I think this is different in FED, where R3 and BR would be out]

3. As I understand pro interps, R3 is out even if F5 is playing in and no other infielder has a play on the ball unless he's directly behind the fielder. The rationale for this interp is that the defense has a right to field a batted ball unhindered, whether that happens in the infield or outfield. Runners are given enough protection by the exception for being immediately behind a fielder.

[Dave Hensley]

Originally Posted by tibear

As I said in an earlier post, I acknowledge the rule simply states one out in a situation where there appears to be no intent but good luck with the post call discussion.

My response to that rationale is "good luck defending yourself in the protest hearing when you acknowledge you ruled in contravention of the stated rule, because you were afraid of the argument that would ensue."

[BigUmp56]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Can I summarize as follows:

1. In the OP, we judge R3 not to have intended to break up a double play, but he's hit by a fair ball. RULING: INT, dead ball, R3 out, award BR 1B, other runners advance only if forced.

2. If we judge R3 to have interfered to break up a double play; RULING: INT, dead ball, R3 out, and the next most advanced runner is out. If BR is not out on the play, award BR 1B, other runners advance only if forced. [I think this is different in FED, where R3 and BR would be out]

3. As I understand pro interps, R3 is out even if F5 is playing in and no other infielder has a play on the ball unless he's directly behind the fielder. The rationale for this interp is that the defense has a right to field a batted ball unhindered, whether that happens in the infield or outfield. Runners are given enough protection by the exception for being immediately behind a fielder.

I agree with everything you've said except the idea that the exception applies to the outfield.


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.


Here's the professional interpretation according to Evans.


Professional Interpretation: Ordinarily, when a runner is struck with a fair ball, he is legitimately out. There are situations, however, in which he is not out:

(1) The fair ball touches him after going between the legs of an infielder, unless he allows the ball to strike him intentionally;

(2) The fair ball touches him after passing immediately by an infielder, unless he allows the ball to touch him intentionally. “Immediately by” is considered as being within one arm's reach. If the fielder should have fielded the ball with ordinary effort but failed, the runner is not declared out.

(3) The ball touches him after being deflected, unless he intentionally interferes. An American League directive orders that the runner shall not be called out even if another infielder had a chance to make a play (unless his actions are designed to interfere with the deflected ball.)


Tim.

[Snorg]

A slight tweak on the OP....
R3 is properly leading in foul territory. Batter hits a laser beam down the line that hits the 3B bag and rebounds back toward home plate, only to hit R3 in foul territory...

To be an out (or interference) both 7.08 (f) and 7.09 (k) say that a runner or BR must be hit by a fair ball in fair territory, so I have a 'play on', correct?

[Dave Hensley]

Yes, correct.

[Snorg]

Thanks for the confirmation, Dave.