Balls hits runner on base
 

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?

YES, if in your judgment a player had an opportunity to make a play.

NO, ball remains live

NO, IFF is listed as an exception to the rule. The runner is safe unless he intentionally interferes.

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

Except for the infield fly situation, whether the base runner is on a base is immaterial.

It comes down to whether the runner got hit by a batted ball over fair territory which potentially prevented the defense from making a play. If the umpire decides that ANY defensive player could have made a play on the ball if it hadn't touched the runner then the play is dead, the hit baserunner is out, the batter is awarded first and all other runners return to their TOP base.

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

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

Again, I would have to disagree. The rules specify not "any defensive player" but "an infielder".

I stand corrected.

Thanks

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

For arguement sake, does the runner have to give up his position on the bag to allow the fielder to field the ball? Can the runner be called for interference, if he does not?

For arguement sake, does the runner have to give up his position on the bag to allow the fielder to field the ball (pop - up, non-infield fly)? Can the runner be called for interference, if he does not?

For arguement sake, does the runner have to give up his position on the bag to allow the fielder to field the ball (pop - up, non-infield fly)? Can the runner be called for interference, if he does not?

For arguement sake, does the runner have to give up his position on the bag to allow the fielder to field the ball (pop - up, non-infield fly)? Can the runner be called for interference, if he does not?

wow, deja vu

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.

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.

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

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.

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!:)

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

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.

No the runner does not have to give up his/her position on the bag. The runner can keep a foot on the bag and also allow the defense to make a play.

Also, do not allow the fielder to 'draw" an interference call either.

Pete Booth

I read very clearly...it doesn't say anywhere to "give them a little more leeway". It says that they shall NOT be called out!

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.

(k)A fair ball touches him on fair territory before touching a fielder.

If I can interpret this correctly, and apparently I'm not, this refers to a ball hitting, touching, or bouncing off any fielder before it touches the runner.


If a fair ball goes through, or by, an infielder, and touches a runner immediately back of him,

This sounds pretty specific to me. It says infielder. Must be the original framers of the baseball rules made a mistake here?

or touches the runner after having been deflected by a fielder,

Again we have a case where the ball first touches a fielder, not passes by. I can see this happening when a ball bounces off either an outfielder or an infielder

the umpire shall not declare the runner out for being touched by a batted ball.

I see no "extra leeway". No out.

In making such decision the umpire must be convinced that the ball passed through, or by, the fielder,

Again, my interpretation which is WAY OFF, is that "the fielder" here refers the infielder. How could it "pass by or through" an outfielder and hit a runner. Maybe the guy was a skunk?:D

and that no other infielder had the chance to make a play on the ball.

Again, very specific on who has a chance at the play.

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.

Check out 7.08f - a runner hit by a batted ball - there is NO mention of "any fielder" only the infielder.

I have not been to "umpire school" but I do know how to read. The rules make it quite clear, to me at least, that this is an infielder.

The rule you are reading incorrectly is ONLY (Solely and specifically) to be applied in the case of a ball that goes through or immediately by a fielder. It says, "Through or by and infielder" right there in the rule, but you want to apply this to a ball that does not go through or by an infielder. The reason for THIS rule is that the rules DO give more leeway to a runner in this case. the rule DOES NOT apply to a ball that does not go through or by an infielder. The rulebook is not a buffet - you can't pick part of the wording of THIS rule and use it to replace the wording in the rule regarding a different situation (like the OP, by the way).

Here we go again,
 

How many want to bet that BlueUmp, no matter what documentation is supplied, will NEVER change his mind about his misinterpretation of this rule.

This is a pretty standard happening on internet message boards.

Regards,

The rule says "no other infielder had the chance to make a play on the ball." An outfielder is not in consideration for this part of the rule.

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.

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.

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.

Bob,

When would rule 7.08f ever be applied instead of 7.09k?

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!

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

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.

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.

I think they are essentially redundant. OR, maybe I don't understand the question.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

I'm not taking anyone's side here. We have umpires quoting 7.09k as "an other fielder had a play" when it doesn't say that, it says "infielder."

7.08b was not being discussed or quoted, it was 7.09k that everyone was so enchanted with here.

CoachJM said 7.09k referred to any fielder, which is incorrect, it says "an infielder."

That is the only part I am disputing here. I'm not going against your "gods" of baseball you listed.

I don't need any help getting any letters out smart guy.

njdevs, can I get a clarification on this situation? As I read it, the infield is in, a batted ball goes past an infielder that had a chance to make a play on the ball and then hits a runner standing on a base, correct?

For example, R2, F6 is playing on the grass, in front of the runner and the batter hits a ball directly towards second base. F6 runs to his left to field the ball and it goes between his legs, hitting R2 who is standing on second base. F1 and F4 had no chance at playing the ball for whatever reason.

Would this be the type of situation you were referring to?

Then, bearing in mind 7.08(f) and 7.09(k) from OBR, and respected rule interpretations, the majority here state that R2 would be out for interference if an outfielder (say, F8 playing shallow and charging in on the hit) would have been able to make a play on the ball that F6 missed. Is this correct or am I missing something else to this puzzle?

Sounds like an immature pot shot to me. Some pose questions and what they would call based on what they know and are actually willing to learn from what is said on this board. I've changed my view on many topics by reading and defending positions this board.

You don't know me at all, and I don't know you. If you feel the need to stoop to this level, you are the one showing how ignorant you really are. Maybe you should attempt to actually add to the intelligent discussion here instead of making personal attacks against someone you don't have a clue about.

Actually, I was consistently and repeatedly trying to tell BG to stop using 7.09k in this sitch, as it doesn't apply.

~sigh~
 

"Sounds like an immature pot shot to me. Some pose questions and what they would call based on what they know and are actually willing to learn from what is said on this board. I've changed my view on many topics by reading and defending positions this board.

"You don't know me at all, and I don't know you. If you feel the need to stoop to this level, you are the one showing how ignorant you really are. Maybe you should attempt to actually add to the intelligent discussion here instead of making personal attacks against someone you don't have a clue about."

First let me wipe the tear from my eye.

There, much better.

IF my post offended you me thinks your skin just may be too thin to be an umpire.

Regards and back to my cave.

I never said it offended me. It just showed everyone how immature you really are. You can't add anything substantial to the conversation that was taking place, so you act like the troll you are. You simply attack others in an attempt to make yourself look intelligent. Even my 5th grade students understand that a person who acts that way is lacking in self-esteem.

At least try to post a baseball question or answer so others can learn. That's what this forum is about. I believe that after reading your posts, I actually am dumber than when I started.

Now, back to the point at hand. I am still really trying to learn here and be the best umpire I can be at the levels I do. All my references come from the rulebooks and casebooks that I have. Apparently those are not enough. This JR that everyone is referring to: what's its unabbreviated title, and where can I get one? What other reference materials would a High School umpire consider "absolutely necessary" to improve themselves?

BU,

Let me ask a question.

R3 and a left handed batter, the shift is on such that the SS and 3B are playing in shallow right field.
Batter hits a ball down the 3B line and hits R3 in fair terrritory
What is your call and why???

My original entry into this fray was only to point out that JM said that in 7.09k it says "any fielder," which is not accurate. Any conjecture as to my agreeing or disagreeing with the interpretation of any other rule is not of my making.

JM said that even if an outfielder has a play on a deflected or ball that passed through an infielder, that a runner is out when hit by the ball. That is false.

All I did was point out what a rule really says, and dispell any notion that it says otherwise. An outfielder who is not stationed in the infield at the TOP is not considered as an infielder for the purposes of rule 7.09k.

My call in this specific situation (if I'm reading it correctly) would be an out. The rule book I'm using (FED) states that the runner is out if touched by a batted ball in fair territory before it touches or passes an infielder. In the situation you describe, and according to the book, both the SS and 3rd baseman are still considered infielders.

In ORB however (which I'm just becoming familiar with, so I don't have it all down!) they, according to the technical definition of terms, are no longer considered infielders.

Well, I'd suggest the rules themselves, but that doesn't seem to be working too well so far.



I keed

Okay Lman,

The first time you even post on this topic, and you also take a shot at me. Does it make you feel important?

Get specific "O Wise One". Which FED rule here have I missed? I at least have the guts to post the rule I'm quoting. Lets see if you have the guts to back up your ignorant statement with the rule I've missed.

I'm awaiting your brilliant answer. I'm sure it will be enlightening to us all!

SDSteve & mcrowder,

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

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

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

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.

Reference attached for the purchase of J/R

http://www.rulesofbaseball.com/

NOTE: It's next to impossible to get the Major league baseball Umpires manual referred to as (MLBUM) or Jim Evans annotated (JEA). One must attend PRO School in order to get these materials. In other words one cannot purchase these materials on line as they are not distributed to the general public.

In addition to the J/R the other most notable books are the PBUC manual which you can get on line and Carl Childresses Baseball Rule Differences (BRD) which you can purchase at Officiating.com

Reason for supplemental materials.

As you have already encountered simply reading the OBR rule-book is not enough. It is poorly written and indexed and does not tell the 'complete story"

Case and Point. In order to fully understand the appeal process one needs to know which type of "action" (ie relaxed vs. unrelaxed) is going on. The terms Relaxed and Unrelaxed are not mentioned anywhere in the OBR rule-book.

By purchasing the materials mentioned above, there are case plays (ala the FED case book) so the reader can understand the rule. What better way to understand something then to have case plays to read.

FED / NCAA have their own rule interps. Each has a case book to explain THEIR sets of rules.

Pete Booth

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.

Maybe it is textbook Jerry Davis, but why would anyone stand that far back from the plate? How is one going to see pitches well enough?

It is Jerry [sic] Davis' nefarious plan to singlehandedly ruin the umpiring profession in order for him to claim he was one of the last great umpires. It's true, I read it on the internet.

Hey, at least he likes tits.http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/1/1_4_83.gif

When you are in a hole, STOP DIGGING!

You may think Garth is trying to bust your stones, but he isn't. You are talking about something that you don't know about. Use this as a learning experience and go learn about the Gerry Davis stance and how it works. You'll be better for it.

Plus, he wasn't wearing the authorized "Sear's" pants.

It's "Gerry" [non]. http://www.gerrydavis.com/

Maybe it is textbook Jerry Davis, but why would anyone stand that far back from the plate? How is one going to see pitches well enough?

After many years, I have changed to the GD stance. Yes, it puts you farther back, but I have never felt so confident calling pitches. I'm now getting through entire games without hearing a single chirp about a pitch. I'm sure I will stick with that positioning.

Besides the view, I personally find two other advantages to the GD stance: (1) it is easier for me to remain absolutely motionless while tracking the ball, and (2) I can see better whether the batter offers.

blueump ... you've just been endorsed by canadacoach6. Think about that. Wanna review your opinions now? I sure would.

And canadacoach - when you've worked more than 5 minutes (if you've even worked that yet) behind the plate, and tried different stances, THEN you can comment on plate mechanics. This statement about the proper positioning of the GD stance (if the ejection = reversible judgement call didn't already) cements your standing as King Troll. You don't even have the weakest glimmer of a clue. Please ... ask all the questions you want, and we'll help... but PLEASE don't offer your opinion until you have the experience to base it on.

Sigh! What a perfect example of wasted flesh! What happened, did a train run over your bridge today, Troll and wake you up?

Yes, thank you. I was spelling it the way canadatroll had, hence the [sic].