Balls hits runner on base

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by CoachJM

BlueUmp & tibear,

Rule 2.00, Interference (a) Offensive Interference: "any fielder"

6.08(d): "a fielder"

7.08(b): "a fielder"

7.09(k): "a fielder"

So, according to the text of the rules (not to mention the MLBUM, JEA, & J/R), any member of the defense (i.e., fielder) is protected from interference. Whether the defense had a realistic chance to successfully complete a play is not relevant unless the untouched batted ball went "through or by" a fielder (i.e., between his legs or within his reach) and hit a runner who was immediately back of him.

JM

Thanks. I knew I knew this.

[blueump]

The OP did not refer to "any interference" but was specific to being hit by a batted ball. I think the rule references I stated earlier still stand as specific to an infielder.

[UmpJM]

Originally Posted by blueump

The OP did not refer to "any interference" but was specific to being hit by a batted ball. I think the rule references I stated earlier still stand as specific to an infielder.

blueump,

A runner being hit by a batted ball is one type of interference. The rule most specific (in OBR) to the OP is 7.09(k). Perhaps you should read it & see if you'd like to amend this statement - because it is incorrect.

JM

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by blueump

The OP did not refer to "any interference" but was specific to being hit by a batted ball. I think the rule references I stated earlier still stand as specific to an infielder.

What I stated and the citations JM has provided is how this is expalined in JEA and how this is taught for the original situation at Evans pro school.

[blueump]

Originally Posted by CoachJM

blueump,

A runner being hit by a batted ball is one type of interference. The rule most specific (in OBR) to the OP is 7.09(k). Perhaps you should read it & see if you'd like to amend this statement - because it is incorrect.

JM

Read again, and posted:

(k)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.

I stand on what I posted earlier!

[UmpJM]

blueump,

You may choose to so stand, but you are still wrong.

If you read the text of the rule you posted carefully, you will see that the text you bolded only applies in the case where the runner has been hit by a fair batted ball which has gone "through or by" a fielder - which is not what happened in the OP.

Even if that had happened, and the fielder who happened to still have a play on the ball was an outfielder (hard to imagine, but possible, I suppose), the runner would still be out. That's what the rule means.

JM

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by blueump

Read again, and posted:

(k)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.

I stand on what I posted earlier!

Let's see ... I'll take a little bit from this rule, a little bit from this other rule, and infer something from another rule... and make up my own rule. Wrong. Just wrong.

"Through or by" (meaning very near) is treated differently, in that the runner is given a LITTLE more leeway, as he could not have anticipated the path of the ball. If it's not "through or by an infielder", and just BEYOND an infielder (as in the OP), the runner must still not interfere if ANY FIELDER had a play on the ball.

[PeteBooth]

No the runner does not have to give up his/her position on the bag. The runner can keep a foot on the bag and also allow the defense to make a play.

Also, do not allow the fielder to 'draw" an interference call either.

Pete Booth

[blueump]

Originally Posted by mcrowder

Let's see ... I'll take a little bit from this rule, a little bit from this other rule, and infer something from another rule... and make up my own rule. Wrong. Just wrong.

"Through or by" (meaning very near) is treated differently, in that the runner is given a LITTLE more leeway, as he could not have anticipated the path of the ball. If it's not "through or by an infielder", and just BEYOND an infielder (as in the OP), the runner must still not interfere if ANY FIELDER had a play on the ball.

I read very clearly...it doesn't say anywhere to "give them a little more leeway". It says that they shall NOT be called out!

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by njdevs00cup

the infield is drawn in and had an opportunity to make a play?

This answer depends on the rule set and what you mean by "opportunity to make a play."

Under OBR, start with the premise that a runner who is hit by the batted ball is out. Period.

Now recognize that this isn't "fair" if the runner thought the ball could be fielded. So, a runner is not out if the ball is deflected, or if the ball goes immediately through or past a fielder.

Now recognize that this second part (the "through or by" part) isn't "fair" to the defense if another (in?)fielder had a play (meaning able to field the ball and get an out). (This excpetion to the exception does NOT apply when the ball is deflected.)

Now you know the rule.

[blueump]

(k)A fair ball touches him on fair territory before touching a fielder.

If I can interpret this correctly, and apparently I'm not, this refers to a ball hitting, touching, or bouncing off any fielder before it touches the runner.


If a fair ball goes through, or by, an infielder, and touches a runner immediately back of him,

This sounds pretty specific to me. It says infielder. Must be the original framers of the baseball rules made a mistake here?

or touches the runner after having been deflected by a fielder,

Again we have a case where the ball first touches a fielder, not passes by. I can see this happening when a ball bounces off either an outfielder or an infielder

the umpire shall not declare the runner out for being touched by a batted ball.

I see no "extra leeway". No out.

In making such decision the umpire must be convinced that the ball passed through, or by, the fielder,

Again, my interpretation which is WAY OFF, is that "the fielder" here refers the infielder. How could it "pass by or through" an outfielder and hit a runner. Maybe the guy was a skunk?

and that no other infielder had the chance to make a play on the ball.

Again, very specific on who has a chance at the play.

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.

Check out 7.08f - a runner hit by a batted ball - there is NO mention of "any fielder" only the infielder.

I have not been to "umpire school" but I do know how to read. The rules make it quite clear, to me at least, that this is an infielder.

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by blueump

I read very clearly...it doesn't say anywhere to "give them a little more leeway". It says that they shall NOT be called out!

The rule you are reading incorrectly is ONLY (Solely and specifically) to be applied in the case of a ball that goes through or immediately by a fielder. It says, "Through or by and infielder" right there in the rule, but you want to apply this to a ball that does not go through or by an infielder. The reason for THIS rule is that the rules DO give more leeway to a runner in this case. the rule DOES NOT apply to a ball that does not go through or by an infielder. The rulebook is not a buffet - you can't pick part of the wording of THIS rule and use it to replace the wording in the rule regarding a different situation (like the OP, by the way).

[Tim C]

How many want to bet that BlueUmp, no matter what documentation is supplied, will NEVER change his mind about his misinterpretation of this rule.

This is a pretty standard happening on internet message boards.

Regards,

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by CoachJM

Even if that had happened, and the fielder who happened to still have a play on the ball was an outfielder (hard to imagine, but possible, I suppose), the runner would still be out. That's what the rule means.

The rule says "no other infielder had the chance to make a play on the ball." An outfielder is not in consideration for this part of the rule.

[blueump]

Originally Posted by mcrowder

The rule you are reading incorrectly is ONLY (Solely and specifically) to be applied in the case of a ball that goes through or immediately by a fielder. It says, "Through or by and infielder" right there in the rule, but you want to apply this to a ball that does not go through or by an infielder. The reason for THIS rule is that the rules DO give more leeway to a runner in this case. the rule DOES NOT apply to a ball that does not go through or by an infielder. The rulebook is not a buffet - you can't pick part of the wording of THIS rule and use it to replace the wording in the rule regarding a different situation (like the OP, by the way).

HUH???

So, what rule (if not this one) do you apply to a baserunner hit by a batted ball, standing on a base when "the infield is drawn in and had an opportunity to make a play" as I can clearly read the OP says.

Maybe the buffet food has gotten in your eyes, but still have a live ball, no out, as I stated originally. You seem to be arguing just to argue.