Balls hits runner on base

[blueump]

Originally Posted by GarthB

What if an outfielder is also playing in, is directly behind the runner and is attempting a play on the ball?

Nope, no good. The book specifies it as "an infielder".

ORB - 7.08f
FED - 8-4-2k

[tibear]

Originally Posted by blueump

Nope, no good. The book specifies it as "an infielder".

ORB - 7.08f
FED - 8-4-2k

I stand corrected.

Thanks

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by blueump

Nope, no good. The book specifies it as "an infielder".

ORB - 7.08f
FED - 8-4-2k

I may be having a major memory malfuction. When I get home I'll check the source of this opinion.

[blueump]

Originally Posted by GarthB

I may be having a major memory malfuction. When I get home I'll check the source of this opinion.

The "source" is pretty easy to find since you do apparently have internet connection:

http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/official_info...s/runner_7.jsp

or if you need to:

(f) 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;
Rule 7.08(f) Comment: If two runners are touched by the same fair ball, only the first one is out because the ball is instantly dead.

[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

[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

[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.

[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.