Balls hits runner on base

[UmpJM]

SDSteve & mcrowder,

Why do you think 7.09(k) doesn't apply? The very first sentence is:

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. ...

Now, that is the exact situation posed in the OP, and 7.09(k) is the most specific rule in OBR pertaining to the OP.

Now the rest of 7.09(k), which talks about exceptions to the basic rule under which the runner would NOT be out, isn't relevant to the OP because the ball was NOT deflected, and, as far as we know, did not go "through or by" a fielder and hit the runner immediately back of him.

I subsequently made the outrageous (to some) assertion that the "through or by" exception could apply, even if the fielder who had the subsequent play was an outfielder rather than an infielder. I wish I hadn't included this statement, not because it is incorrect (I still believe it to be correct) but because it created a tangent to the initial sitch under discussion which seems to have confused rather than clarified the issue at hand. Besides, it's never going to happen - it theoretically could, but it won't.

Taken as a whole, the text of the rules and the Official Interpretations (MLBUM & PBUC) are clear that a runner who is hit by an untouched fair batted ball is out, with the exception of two very narrowly defined situations:

1. It is an IFF AND the batter is touching his base AND does not intentionally touch the ball.

2. The ball has passed between the legs or within reach of a fielder AND hits the runner immediately back of that fielder AND the runner did not intentionally contact the ball AND no other (for now, I'll just say) INfielder had a chance to get a runner out on the play.

JM

[Welpe]

Coach, thanks for the clarification. I owe you a frosty beverage of your choosing.

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by CoachJM

SDSteve & mcrowder,

Why do you think 7.09(k) doesn't apply? The very first sentence is:

JM

I am trying to say that the runner in the OP is out. So, to be more specific, the exception pointed to by BZ et all does not apply, meaning the runner is still out. So, technically, you are right that this rule does apply (at least the portion you quoted) ... but it applies to call this runner OUT, not to rule him safe as BZ really seems motivated to do.

[UmpJM]

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:

INTERFERENCE
(a) Offensive interference is an act by the team at bat which interferes with, obstructs, impedes, hinders or confuses any fielder attempting to make a play. ...

and

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

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