Balls hits runner on base

[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