Balls hits runner on base

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by blueump

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.

You're kidding right. You do see that the rule you quoted is just one small part of the bigger rule (this one is part k), right? I'll leave it to you to find the right one, and give you the hint that it does not say that the fielder who had a play on the ball had to be an infielder - it says A FIELDER.

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.

Bases loaded, infield in, CF standing 10-feet behind 2B. Sharp hit up the middle bounces (past F4 and F6), hits R2, and you feel F8 had a play. You rule no out? If so, please read the rest of the rule. If you still have no out, there's no hope for you. Garth, me, et al have told you the rule. Choose to believe what you want to believe.

[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?

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by mcrowder

You're kidding right. You do see that the rule you quoted is just one small part of the bigger rule (this one is part k), right? I'll leave it to you to find the right one, and give you the hint that it does not say that the fielder who had a play on the ball had to be an infielder - it says A FIELDER.


Bases loaded, infield in, CF standing 10-feet behind 2B. Sharp hit up the middle bounces (past F4 and F6), hits R2, and you feel F8 had a play. You rule no out? If so, please read the rest of the rule. If you still have no out, there's no hope for you. Garth, me, et al have told you the rule. Choose to believe what you want to believe.

My rule book says "no other infielder had the chance to make a play on the ball." F8 is not an infielder.

[blueump]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

My rule book says "no other infielder had the chance to make a play on the ball." F8 is not an infielder.

Maybe the rule book is in error? Maybe its a typo over and over and over again!

[SanDiegoSteve]

I suggest everyone who thinks the rule applies to an outfielder go reread the rule more carefully.

[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.

[Don Mueller]

Originally Posted by mcrowder

Bases loaded, infield in, CF standing 10-feet behind 2B. .

For the purpose of rule interpretation, isn't F8 in this situation an infielder?

[blueump]

Originally Posted by Don Mueller

For the purpose of rule interpretation, isn't F8 in this situation an infielder?

Thus we come to yet another difference between FED and ORB.

In ORB, not unless he is actually on the infield - any player who occupies the position in the infield is an infielder.

In FED, no - the players who play left, right and centerfields are considered outfielders, no matter where they play...the others are infielders.

[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.

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

My rule book says "no other infielder had the chance to make a play on the ball." F8 is not an infielder.

7.09k does ... and 7.09k does not apply to this situation. 7.09k specifically applies to situations where the ball passes through or by an infielder.

7.08b -
Any runner is out when --
(b) He ... hinders a fielder attempting to make a play on a batted ball;

Note - NOT an infielder ... a fielder.

[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

[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

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

I suggest everyone who thinks the rule applies to an outfielder go reread the rule more carefully.

Let's see, that would include Roder, Evans, the authors of the MLBUM, every MLB umpire, PBUC......I'll help you get the letters out. Let's start with Mike Winters.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by blueump

Maybe the rule book is in error? Maybe its a typo over and over and over again!

There are over 230 errors identified in the rule book.

Let's recap, on one side we have Jim Evans, Rick Roder, the MLBUM (an official publicatino with official interpretations), PBUC, the pro schools, and MLB and MiLB umpires.

On the other side we have blueump and SDS. Man, this is a tough choice, but I think I'll go with the pros on this one.