mcrowder,

I believe you and I are in "violent agreement" in regard to the question of the runner being out in the OP.

I'm not exactly sure what blueump (I'm guessing that's who "BZ" refers to) is suggesting; he seems to believe that infielders get special protection from offensive interference not afforded to outfielders. Simply because a couple of rules specifically mention infielders in defining rules regarding situations where, 99%+ of the time, infielders would be the fielders involved.

To my mind, the primary rules defining offensive interference are:

and

To me, these two rules make it clear that the underlying principle is that any fielder is protected from offensive interference.

These certainly aren't the only rules covering offensive interference, but to my mind, all of the other rules are just specific, representative examples of ways in which the offense might interfere, and how those situations should be ruled.

JM

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

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.

I know you weren't asking me - but when has that every stopped anybody? :)

He's out!

Any runner who is struck by a batted ball is out unless:
1) He was in contact with a base on an Infield Fly
2) The ball was deflected off a fielder (or umpire)
3) The ball passed within the immediate vicinity of a fielder and no other fielder had a play on the ball.

Your situation doesn't seem to come under any of the above categories - so he's out.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

RIF

OBR 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. has missed a play, then the runner shall be called out for interference.

As noted, the rule, inconsistently, refers to fielder and infielder. This is one of the 230 plus error that have been identified in the rule book.

The interpretation contained in the MLBUM, which is authoritative, is consistent with how this has been called for years, and years and years.

How can someone who is good enough to be a major league umpire, who was trained by major league umpires, and who owns this publication continue to argue against the correct call?

Amazing.

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.

This is from my soccer days, but is appropos.

I was a HS and NCAA ref running the officials a rec tournament in my city. One of the coaches started crying about something and said "I'm a referee to. I have four cards (organizations)". I couldn't keep my laugh inside 'cause there are only THREE sanctioning organizations for soccer (USSF, NCAA, and Fed)

I do yearn for the day a rat comes up to me on a ballfield with that weak stuff and I reply "well I'm a coach too so let me tell you what I thought about you sending that runner..."

AH to dream.

LakeErieUmp,

Are you sure you didn't mean to post this to a different thread?

JM

Yep, I sure did. Computer literacy is not my forte. AND I couldn't figure out how to delete and move this.

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.

Further, from Jaksa/Roder page 96,
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?

Yes, you should try it sometime. Like read what I wrote and don't add any connotation to it, or say that I don't know how to rule on something. I haven't yet argued your interpretations.

This is not the part of the rule I was quoting. Try quoting the part of the rule I was referring to. If it isn't part of the rule, then why didn't they revise it when they printed the new MLB rules, and changed the rule from its former designation as 7.09m, to its current 7.09k? This is the part I am talking about, and no other part. RIF GARTH! It still says:

"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.

Yeah, I going to tell a coach that the rule book he's shoving in my face after I protect the left fielder making a play on the ball that kicked off the runner's leg after F6 booted the sh*t out of the play that there are 230 errors in the rule book, and Skip, this is one of them, and we're gonna use the MLB interp on it, okay? Yessir, that left fielder might of had a play on that ball, and I'm gonna penalize your runner because that bonehead shortstop of theirs can't field his farkin position worth a sh*t, and he happened to be running where the ball deflected.

You know, not all of us have a list of the 230 errors that the damn book still has in it. It really pisses me off when I hear this 230 errors crap, yet every year these damn mistakes are allowed to stay in the book.

I was never arguing the OP. I agree with everyone's assessment that if the ball hits the runner untouched by a fielder, then he's OUT. Where did anyone get the idea that I was arguing this? I was only correcting JM's assertion that 7.09k said "no other fielder," when it actually says "no other infielder." That is all I was saying. Now all of a sudden, you have to keep up with this crap here:

I don't know about the arguing against any correct call. I did no such thing. But the rest of your paragraph is true.:) Amazing? Indeed I am.;)

This is the exact same thing that he does on The Amateur Baseball Umpire's Association. He's a jerk, plain and simple, and at least half of his posts have the sole purpose of harassing other umpires. Just remember that he is just a wannabe MLB umpire, who talks a big game over the internet, but doesn't even know the basics of positioning himself properly behind the catcher.

Are you referring to the photos of Tim at the ABUA isite n which he is correctly positioned for one using the GD Stance, which he is using in the photos? I'm sure you are, since there are no other photos of Tim in a stance at ABUA.

*yawn*


Your next substantive post on most any topic will be your first one. Nice to see you see have time to troll, though. Classes (and mind) must be light this semester.

Yes I was referring to him at ABUA. He was way too far back from the catcher. And LMan I see you like to diss as well.

Let's check your credentials for making this judgement.

Date of Birth:
December 7, 1987
Age: 19
Biography: I'm 19, umpire in Canada
Location: Canada
Interests: Wrestling, tits and wheels, baseball
Occupation: Student

Obviously, you are well versed in the Gerry Davis stance. For example, you are aware, of course, that the Gerry Davis Stance, which Tee was using in the photo, requires the umpire to be much farther back from the catcher, hmmmmm?

You should attempt to have at least an idea of what you're talking about before you sound off. Tee's positioning in that photo is textbook for the Gerry Davis stance.