what should i have called

[tibear]

Originally Posted by BigUmp56

What the third baseman could have done is irrelevant. 7.09(g) requires a willfull and deliberate attempt to interfere for the purposes of breaking up a double play. If the defense is deprived of the opportunity to play on another runner, absent intent on the part of the runner who interfered, you can only get the one out.


Tim.

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

In my experience, and I know the rule about the ball passing through a infielder, if there is any chance(and I mean ANY) of another infielder getting to the ball had the baserunner not been struck. The ball is dead and the runners placed at TOP or moved forward as a result of batter being placed on first.

Good luck with the discussion with the defense when you call everyone save on a ball hit through the third baseman who's playing in and then hits R2 with the shortstop standing 6 feet behind R2.

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.

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.

[BigUmp56]

Originally Posted by tibear

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

What do you think 7.08(f) is describing if it's not interference?


7.08(f) Any runner is out when he is touched by a fair ball in fair territory before the ball has touched or passed an infielder. The ball is dead and no runner may score, nor runners advance, except runners forced to advance.

EXCEPTION: If a runner is touching his base when touched by an Infield Fly, he is not out, although the batter is out.


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.

Official Notes - Case Book - Comments: PENALTY FOR INTERFERENCE: The runner is out and the ball is dead is dead.


7.09(g) It is interference by a batter or a runner when if, in the judgment of the umpire, a base runner willfully and deliberately interferes with a batted ball or a fielder in the act of fielding a batted ball with the obvious intent to break up a double play, the ball is dead. The umpire shall call the runner out for interference and also call out the batter-runner because of the action of his teammate. In no event may bases be run or runs scored because of such action by a runner.

Cross References: 2.00 Offensive Interference, 6.05(m), 7.08(b), 7.09(f, h, l), Appendix 14 .

Customs and Usage: This rule was introduced to prevent a conniving baserunner (1) from intentionally allowing a batted ball to strike him, (2) from interfering with a fielder in the act of fielding a batted ball, or (3) from picking up a batted ball which most likely could be converted into a double play in the judgment of the umpire. Regardless of where the double play would have most likely been possible, the runner who interferes and the batter-runner are always called out. All other runners return to the bases last occupied at the time of the pitch.


Please note that the only rules that provides for a second out to be called are 7.09(g)-(h)


If you and your partner made that call absent intent on the part of the runner who interfered, you both made a bad call.

Let me add this from the MLBUM

6.3 WILLFUL AND DELIBERATE INTERFERENCE

Rules 7.09(g) and 7.09(h) were added to the Official Baseball Rules to add an additional penalty when a base runner or a batter-runner deliberately and intentionally interferes with a batted ball or a fielder in the act of fielding a batted ball to deprive the defensive team of an opportunity to complete a possible double play. Keep in mind the rules provide that the runner or batter-runner must interfere with the obvious attempt to break up a double play.


Tim.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by tibear

In my experience, and I know the rule about the ball passing through a infielder, if there is any chance(and I mean ANY) of another infielder getting to the ball had the baserunner not been struck. The ball is dead and the runners placed at TOP or moved forward as a result of batter being placed on first.

Good luck with the discussion with the defense when you call everyone save on a ball hit through the third baseman who's playing in and then hits R2 with the shortstop standing 6 feet behind R2.

If the shortstop had a legitimate chance of getting to the ball and making a play, yes you should call interference. Tim was only talking about the case where no other play was possible. You are reading too much into these situations. We aren't playing "what if."

[BigUmp56]

Even given that, Steve, I don't know of many (if any) shortstops that could have a play on a shot down the line.


Tim.

[tibear]

not to nitpick but MLB 2006 rules state:

7.09(g) If, in the judgment of the umpire, a batter-runner willfully and deliberately interferes with a batted ball or a fielder in the act of fielding a batted ball, with the obvious intent to break up a double play, the ball is dead; the umpire shall call the batter-runner out for interference and shall also call out the runner who had advanced closest to the home plate regardless where the double play might have been possible. In no event shall bases be run because of such interference.

So it is the most advanced runner called out not the BR.

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.

[BigUmp56]

7.09(h) is for interference on a batter-runner. 7.09(g) covers interference on a base runner. You seem to have your letters mixed up. I really don't think luck would be a factor in a post call discussion. I'm quite confident that if they didn't like my explanation of the proper ruling they would have three options.

1- Lodge a protest

2- Accept it even though they didn't like it.

3- View the remainder of the game from the parking lot.

I don't worry about how a coach might try to influence one of my calls that he doesn't like. I'm not one to take a coaches feelings into account before I make a call.


Tim.

[tibear]

Tim,

Your right in that I quoted the batter-runner but the rules I have clearly indicate that it is 7.09(g) is for batter-runner and you are quoting 7.09(f): http://www.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/mlb/of...s/runner_7.jsp

My fault for not looking closely at the wording, and missing batter-runner instead of base runner, but simply looking at the 7.09(g) reference.

Anyway, long thread over a nothing issue.

[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.

[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."

[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.

[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.