what should i have called

[clips2]

runner on third, leading off the bag.1 foot outside foul territoryand other in fair territory. batter hits a ball that hits him..when it hit him it was going to be a foul ball. But, since he had part of his body in fair territory is he out.. i called foul ball and runner still on third...if a runner is hit by a ball in foul territory he is not out..but what happens when some part is in fair territory,,,,thanks for the help

[tibear]

If ball is in foul territory when it hits the runner it is a foul ball.

If ball is in fair territory, the ball is dead, runner is out. Depending on base runners and where the third baseman is at the time of the contact there might be a possibility of calling a double play.

[BigUmp56]

Originally Posted by tibear

If ball is in foul territory when it hits the runner it is a foul ball.

If ball is in fair territory, the ball is dead, runner is out. Depending on base runners and where the third baseman is at the time of the contact there might be a possibility of calling a double play.

If you're going to call a double play here you would need intent to interfere for the purposes of breaking up a double play on the part of the runner struck by the batted ball. The position of F5 is only relevant to whether or not you would have interference at all on the runner. If F5 was playing in front of the runner and the ball had passed immediately back of him before it hit the runner, the runner has not interfered even if the ball had hit him over fair territory.


Tim.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by clips2

runner on third, leading off the bag.1 foot outside foul territoryand other in fair territory. batter hits a ball that hits him..when it hit him it was going to be a foul ball. But, since he had part of his body in fair territory is he out.. i called foul ball and runner still on third...if a runner is hit by a ball in foul territory he is not out..but what happens when some part is in fair territory,,,,thanks for the help

Like tibear said, it is the position of the ball that determines whether the runner is out or not, not the position of the runner. Had the runner been where he is supposed to be on this play, his whole body would have been in foul territory, thus if the ball hit him, it would be an ordinary foul. If the ball is over fair territory when it hits the runner, the runner is out regardless of where he is standing, including on the base (with the exception of an IFF, and the scenario BigUmp just posted while I was posting this).

[tibear]

Originally Posted by BigUmp56

If you're going to call a double play here you would need intent to interfere for the purposes of breaking up a double play on the part of the runner struck by the batted ball. The position of F5 is only relevant to whether or not you would have interference at all on the runner. If F5 was playing in front of the runner and the ball had passed immediately back of him before it hit the runner, the runner has not interfered even if the ball had hit him over fair territory.


Tim.

The situation I was thinking of: bases loaded and the third baseman is playing tight to the line and behind third base. In this situation, the third baseman could have picked up the ball touched third for the force of R2 and then thrown the batter out at first. There is no requirement to know intent in this case, if in the umpire's opinion, the defense would have made a double play had the runner not touched the ball then in addition to the baserunner the batter is also out.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by tibear

The situation I was thinking of: bases loaded and the third baseman is playing tight to the line and behind third base. In this situation, the third baseman could have picked up the ball touched third for the force of R2 and then thrown the batter out at first. There is no requirement to know intent in this case, if in the umpire's opinion, the defense would have made a double play had the runner not touched the ball then in addition to the baserunner the batter is also out.

That's true in FED rules, but not in OBR. Since the OP didn't specify, most on this board default to OBR.

[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.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Tim is correct. If the ball hits the runner by accident, you cannot assume the double play, and it's just a tough break for the defense. They can only get the one out for the INT.

[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.