Balls hits runner on base

[UmpJM]

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

[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.

[Don Mueller]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

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.

Bob,

When would rule 7.08f ever be applied instead of 7.09k?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Don Mueller

Bob,

When would rule 7.08f ever be applied instead of 7.09k?

I think they are essentially redundant. OR, maybe I don't understand the question.

[Don Mueller]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I think they are essentially redundant. OR, maybe I don't understand the question.

I'm just curious if there is even a need for 7.08f. It seems all it can do is serve to confuse.
My question is:
Is there ever an application for 7.08f that is not covered by 7.09k?

7.08
(f) He is touched by a fair ball in fair territory before the ball has touched or passed an infielder.

Specifically identifies infielders, nothing about other fielders having opportunity or proximity of batted ball to infielder when it passes, or proximity of runner to fielder.

Situation:
R1, F3 playing in front of R1, hit and run F4 on the bag ground ball hits R1 1/3 of the way to second.

By 7.08f standards:
Play on. no call. Ball was past infielder

7.09k standard
R1 out. Ball had not touched fielder, nor did this meet the exception touches a runner immediately back of him


7.09k
A fair ball touches him on fair territory before touching a fielder
With the exception of ball passing through infielder and hitting runner immediately back of him all runners are out if hit by batted ball.

I see plenty of opportunity for 'no calls' on hit runners using 7.08f that would be outs using 7.09k. And absolutely no 'no calls' using 7.09k that would be outs using 7.08f.

It appears that if 7.08f went away it would have zero effect on how any hit runner scenario should be called.

[David Emerling]

Originally Posted by Don Mueller

7.08
(f) He is touched by a fair ball in fair territory before the ball has touched or passed an infielder.

Specifically identifies infielders, nothing about other fielders having opportunity or proximity of batted ball to infielder when it passes, or proximity of runner to fielder.

That's why I mentioned it was an interpretation of what "passing a fielder" is. If it was black & white - an interpretation wouldn't be necessary.

But you're point is a good one. There are many rules that conflict or are duplicated.

I have a copy of Rick Roder's book 100 Problems With The Official Baseball Rules and many problems, of the type you mention, exist.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

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 exception to the exception does NOT apply when the ball is deflected.)

Now you know the rule.

I just had to quote Bob's post because:
a) he's right, and
b) his interp has the additional virtues of being brief and clear, and
c) he understands that the subordinate clause concerning "no other infielder" applies to the exception, not the main principle that a runner hit by a batted ball is out.

[David Emerling]

Originally Posted by njdevs00cup

If a batted ball hits a baserunner on the base, is the runner out when:

the infield is at normal depth (did not have an opportunity to field)?

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

infield fly situation?

The Infield Fly rule situation is a well known exception. The runner is not out unless he intentionally causes himself to make contact with the ball.

As far as OBR is concerned the accepted interpretation has very little to do with whether the infield is playing in or not.

If a runner is struck by a batted ball (whether on the base or not), he is always OUT unless the ball passes within the immediate reach of an infielder (without touching him) and there is no other infielder that could have made the play.

Let's say there is a runner at 2nd and 3rd with the infield playing on the infield grass for the play at the plate. The batter hits a sharp groundball up the middle that is completely unplayable by either F6 or F4. The ball hits R2 (whether on or off the bag).

He's out!

Another very common scenario:

R1 stealing on the pitch. The batter hits a sharp grounder to the right side that would have easily split the F3 and F4 for a hit. But the ball hits R1.

He's out!

One more scenario:

R2 and R3. Infield playing in. A ground ball gets past F6 and strikes R2 who was directly behind F6. Whether F6 touched the ball or not is irrelevant. The ball remains live and R2 is not out.

Had that ball been completely out-of-reach of F6 (as in the first scenario), R2 would be declared out, even if the ball "passed" F6.

Getting struck by a batted ball is just another way for a runner to be out. The reason he is not out when it passes within the immediate vicinity of a fielder is because the runner is often screened by the fielder and cannot make a fair attempt to avoid the ball because he can't see it.

But, under OBR, whether the infield is "in" or "out" is irrelevant. It's all about whether the ball has passed a fielder's immediate vicinity.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by njdevs00cup

If a batted ball hits a baserunner on the base, is the runner out when:
...

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

njdevs, can I get a clarification on this situation? As I read it, the infield is in, a batted ball goes past an infielder that had a chance to make a play on the ball and then hits a runner standing on a base, correct?

For example, R2, F6 is playing on the grass, in front of the runner and the batter hits a ball directly towards second base. F6 runs to his left to field the ball and it goes between his legs, hitting R2 who is standing on second base. F1 and F4 had no chance at playing the ball for whatever reason.

Would this be the type of situation you were referring to?

Then, bearing in mind 7.08(f) and 7.09(k) from OBR, and respected rule interpretations, the majority here state that R2 would be out for interference if an outfielder (say, F8 playing shallow and charging in on the hit) would have been able to make a play on the ball that F6 missed. Is this correct or am I missing something else to this puzzle?

[Kaliix]

Originally Posted by njdevs00cup

If a batted ball hits a baserunner on the base, is the runner out when:

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

7.09(k) is the proper rule reference for the situation above.

7.09 It is interference by a batter or a runner when -- (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.

While the rule above makes reference to a "fielder" and "infielder" it should be clear that the proper term is infielder. This is backed up by the JEA where the term "infielder" is used EVERY time a member of the defensive team is mentioned.

A runner is always out if he intentionally lets himself be hit with a batted ball, whether that ball is deflected or not, whether no other fielder has a play on the ball or not.

In the original post cited above, the infield is "in" (assuming again we are talking the whole infield) and has had an opportunity to make a play. If the term "make a play" is defined as the ball passing by a fielder within an arms length, then barring the runner allowing the ball to hit him intentionally, the runner is NOT out and the ball remains live.

Since Evans is very careful to reference an infielder in his explanation of the rule in the JEA, whether an outfielder has a play on the ball is not relevant to the rule. If the ball passes by an infielder, meaning within arms length, and no other infielder has a chance for a play, as long as the runner doesn't intentionally let the ball hit him, the runner is NOT OUT and the ball remains live.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by Kaliix

7
Since Evans is very careful to reference an infielder in his explanation of the rule in the JEA, whether an outfielder has a play on the ball is not relevant to the rule. If the ball passes by an infielder, meaning within arms length, and no other infielder has a chance for a play, as long as the runner doesn't intentionally let the ball hit him, the runner is NOT OUT and the ball remains live.

I can only surmise you have never heard Jim explain this rule or attended a pro school or camp at which this was covered.

Jim's explanation is competely contrary to your assumption. The MLBUM ruling is competely contrary to your assumption.

[Kaliix]

Originally Posted by GarthB

I can only surmise you have never heard Jim explain this rule or attended a pro school or camp at which this was covered.

Jim's explanation is competely contrary to your assumption. The MLBUM ruling is competely contrary to your assumption.

I make no assumptions. I am only going by what I read. I have never heard Mr. Evan's explain the rule, but I can read what he wrote concerning the pertinent rule in his Official Baseball Rules, Annotated.

Originally Posted by Jim Evans, page 211

Historical Notes: In 1877, the rules stated that a baserunner struck by any batted ball shall be declared out. The rules of 1920 amended this concept to provide that the runner was not to be declared out if a fair ball goes through an infielder and hits a runner immediately back of him.

After the revision and recodification in 1950, the rule included balls that had been deflected. It further explained what the rulesmakers had in mind by stating that runners were not to be called out if the umpire was convinced that the ball passed through or by the infielders and no other infielder had a chance to make a play on the ball. Of course, if the runner deliberately kicked or interfered intentionally with any such ball, he would be declared out. (Emphasis added)

Further, from Jaksa/Roder page 96,

However, it is not interference if a batted ball touches him after passing a fringe infielder and no other infielder had a play opportunity..., unless he touches such ball intentionally. (Emphasis added)

When addressing the exception to the runner being out by virtue of being hit by a batted ball, both Evans and Jaksa/Roder clearly use the specific phrase "infielder" when referring to another member of the defensive team having an opportunity to field the ball.

I don't know how Jim Evans explained the interference rule, but if he explained it to mean that if a batted ball passes by an infielder and contacts a runner (unintentionally), that the runner is out if an outfielder has an opportunity to play on the ball, his explanation doesn't square with what he or Jaksa/Roder wrote.

Even the OBR state "infielder" in the relevant part of the rule, "that no other infielder had the chance to make a play on the ball."

I don't know how much clearer the rule can be on this?