Situation 13 of NFHS Interpretations appears to conflict with other interpretations of Fed:

SITUATION 13: With the shortstop playing behind second base and in a position to make a catch, the runner standing on second base is hit by a line drive. RULING: The ball is dead and the runner on second base is declared out. The batter-runner is awarded first base.

OK, fine. But why the emphasis that F6 was "in a position to make a catch"? The ruling goes on to say, "If no infielder had been in a position to make a play, the ball would remain live, provided the runner did not intentionally allow himself to be hit by the batted ball." Huh? The ball didn't touch or pass a fielder!

BRD Play 115-298: R2: B1 slaps a ball by the pitcher, where it hits R2 who has retreated to the base. The umpire is certain F6 had no play on the ball. Ruling: In FED and OBR, R2 is out. The base protects a runner only when he is hit by a declared infield fly."

Well, if R2 is out in this play (when touching the bag), he surely must be out on a line drive when off the bag even "if no infielder had been in a position to make a play."

And BRD (from 2002 Casebook 8.4.2i) says, "The umpire will not call interference if a runner in the base path is hit by a batted ball when the infielders are in front of the baseline." To me, this implies that he IS out when they're NOT in front of the baseline.

5-1-1f says the ball becomes dead immediately when a fair batted ball "touches a runner or an umpire before touching any fielder and before passing any fielder other than the pitcher [or] touches a runner after passing through or by an infielder and another infielder could have made a play on the ball."

8-4-2k says any runner is out when he "is contacted by a fair batted ball before it touches an infielder, or after it passes any infielder, except the pitcher, and the umpire is convinced that another infielder has a play."

But Situation 13 says nothing about the ball passing a fielder. It says just that if F6 had no play on the ball, the ball remains live. Are they saying that the ball remains live but the runner is still out?

Did whoever wrote Situation 13 misread 8-4-2k, thinking that "the umpire is convinced that another infielder has a play" applies to the entire sentence and not just the part about the ball passing a fielder?

Help!

I cant speak for whoever wrote the situation but, it seems that either they goofed up or had the NCAA rules in mind when writing.

This was implied in the 2001 BRD pg130 *287. The fact remains, "The ball is dead and any runner is out if he is hit by a batted ball before it has passed an infielder other than the pitcher" FED and OBR.

In Fed and OBR, the runner is not protected while on base (except for an infield fly) however, in NCAA they are unless they intentially interfere

Not true for NCAA.

8-5k "A runner is out when the runner, including a runner in contact with a base, is hit while in fair territory by a batted ball ..."

FED Situation 13 does seem to contradict other FED case plays.

I agree, seems to be a mistake to me, mule. Unless the ball passed a fielder other than the pitcher, that runner is out.

P-Sz

Sorry gentlemen, I stand corrected. Thankyou. It does seem that the FEDs are having a rough year though.

Bob:<p>I think it's one of the FED rulings that's done to answer ONE play posed by ONE coach.

If a fielder is in position to make a catch of the line drive, the runner is OUT, as opposed to the usual ruling of 8.4.2i.

How many times in your career will you see the shortstop play directly behind second base?

Here's a quotation from my posts at eTeamz:<ul><p>The FED has always held that the base protects a runner if the defense is playing behind a line drawn in front of the base. See 8.4.2H and I for further information.

Number 13 is merely a clarification that a runner on base could be out when hit, even though the fielder is behind that line, when the fielder is in "position" to make a catch.

For that to happen, the fielder would need to be directly behind second, which is truly a fourth-world play.


[Edited by Carl Childress on Mar 3rd, 2002 at 02:59 AM]

<b>And here's my response to Carl from the other forum:</b>


Here is situation 13 from the NFHS that Carl referred to:SITUATION 13:
<ul>With the shortstop playing behind second base and in a position to make a catch, the runner standing on second base is hit by a line drive.
RULING: The ball is dead and the runner on second base is declared out. The batter runner is awarded first base. If no infielder had been in a position to make a play, the ball would remain live, provided the runner did not intentionally allow himself to be hit by the batted ball. (5-1 1f1, 8-4-2k, 6-1-5)</ul>
Carl, while you read this as a "situation specific interpretation", I see this as a clarification of interpretation of the rules cited (5-1 1f1, 8-4-2k, 6-1-5) by the "2002 NFHS BASEBALL RULES INTERPRETATIONS."

Carl states:
<ul>Number 13 is merely a clarification that a runner on base could be out when hit, even though the fielder is behind that line, when the fielder is in "position" to make a catch.</ul>
Carl, I don't think that point ever needed clarification. We have all been trained to know that a base is NOT a sanctuary with regards to a batted ball, and that a player being hit while on the base "could be out when hit" with a batted ball. <b>This ruling does not add that information to any interpretation---as you seem to think it does.</b>

What the ruling really adds is that the runner <u>could be ruled safe</u> before the ball passes any infielder if the umpire judges that "no infielder had been in a position to make a play" (from the ruling).

While you interpret this ruling to only apply to a runner on base (because that is the <u>example</u> used to show the interpretation, I would interpret this to apply anywhere on the basepath---not just a runner standing on the base.

Let's look at the following situation:
<ul>R1, R2. With a strong LH pull hitter at the plate, defense has decided F6 will cover steal attempts at 2B. F4 is deep in the hole. On the pitch, R1 and R2 both attempt to steal. F5 moves toward 3rd to cover, and F6 moves toward 2nd to cover. However, Mr. Pullhitter goes with the outside pitch and rips a one-hopper dead to the opening between F5 and F6, but the batted ball hits the stealing R2. </ul>
I would say that even though F5 and F6 may still be behind the basepath of R2, that R2 would not be declared out if it were judged that "no infielder had been in a position to make a play" (per the <u>ruling</u> of NFHS play #13---specific words used and cited). The Fed in their <u>ruling</u> doesn't even mention the fact that it's due to the runner being on the base. They do mention in their "ruling" the fact that "no infielder had been in a position to make a play."

Carl, I think you missed issue of the caseplay vs. the "ruling." It's not that he's standing on the base, and it's certainly not "a clarification that a runner on base could be out when hit", we all knew that before. Rather, it is to show that "If no infielder had been in a position to make a play" then the runner would not need to be declared out even if the ball has not yet passed an infielder other than the pitcher.


Just my opinion,

Freix

Fricks speaks!
 

Freix writes:<ul><p>Carl, I think you missed issue of the caseplay vs. the "ruling." It's not that he's standing on the base, and it's certainly not "a clarification that a runner on base could be out when hit", we all knew that before. Rather, it is to show that "If no infielder had been in a position to make a play" then the runner would not need to be declared out even if the ball has not yet passed an infielder other than the pitcher. </ul><p>Now that's funny!

Situation 13 or BRD?
 

I see that I missed that Situation 13 referred to a runner ON THE BAG. Sorry.

Regardless, the second part of Situation 13 still conflicts with BRD Play 115-298. Both consider (1) a runner in contact with a base, (2) the runner unintentionally hit by a batted ball, (3) the defense playing back, and (4) no infielder in position to make a play. Situation 13 says the runner is NOT out, while BRD 115-298 says he IS out.

Carl Childress quotes a post from eTeamz: "The FED has always held that the base protects a runner if the defense is playing behind a line drawn in front of the base. See 8.4.2H and I for further information." Carl's own BRD, however, says, "[In FED,] the base protects a runner only when he is hit by a declared infield fly." I think the BRD is correct.

And 8.4.2I says, "With R1 on second, B2 hits toward second. The batted ball hits R1 while he is standing on the bag or while he is on his way to third. F4 and F6 (a) are playing deep behind the baseline or (b) F6 is playing on front of the baseline. RULING: In (a), the ball is dead immediately. R1 is out and B2 is awarded first base. In (b), the touching is ignored unless it is ruled intentional, and the ball remains alive because no other fielder had a chance to make a play on the batted ball."

So 8.4.2I says the base DOES NOT protect the runner with the defense playing behind the line. And its example includes runner both on and off the bag as if to say there's no distinction.

Situation 13 is the only citation I have ever seen that says that a FED runner is protected while in contact with a base. I cannot find anything in the rule book that says the base is a sanctuary under any circumstances except infield fly. Still, I would like to know definitively that Situation 13 is incorrect when it says the ball would remain live if no fielder had a chance to play the ball.

F6 playing directly behind 2B may be fourth-world, but F3 playing a few feet behind 1B is a common sight. Three years ago, I did see a runner hit by line drive while in contact with 1B, and F3, playing behind the runner definitely had a play. The umps (not I) called him out.

Could you elaborate on this? I am not sure of your point you are trying to make with casebook play 8.4.2I. "Line drawn in front of the base"...huh?

SITUATION:

-runner stands on the base
-touched by a fair batted ball
-before the ball passes a fielder other than the pitcher
-not an infield fly

When is this runner safe? I don't see it.

P-Sz

Re: Situation 13 or BRD?
 

Greymule:<p>Thanks for pointing out my mistake here. I meant to type playing in front of the line. That's what I mean when I say the FED ruling matches the Brinkman ruling. In my haste I simply reversed the prepositional meaning.

The BRD is correct: If the fielders are IN FRONT OF THE LINE, the base protects them because the ball has "passed" an infielder.

Situation 13 clarifies that if a fielder is not in a position to make a play, the runner is NOT out, even when he is behind the line when the runner would ordinarily be out:<ul><p>SITUATION 13: With the shortstop playing behind second base and in a position to make a catch, the runner standing on second base is hit by a line drive. RULING: The ball is dead and the runner on second base is declared out. The batter-runner is awarded first base. If no infielder had been in a position to make a play, the ball would remain live, provided the runner did not intentionally allow himself to be hit by the batted ball. (5-1-1f1, 8-4-2k, 6-1-5)</ul><p>I must admit that on closer examination, this is a significant expansion of the FED definition of "passing an infielder."

In effect: FED has now distanced themselves completely from NCAA and OBR:

NCAA/OBR: If the fielder has no chance to field the ball, the runner is OUT.<ul><p>He's only protected if the fielder had a "reasonable chance" (NCAA) or the ball passed "within arm's reach" (OBR).</ul><p>FED: If the fielder had no chance to field the ball, the runner is NOT OUT.<ul><p>If no infielder is in position to make a play, the ball remains alive when the runner on base is hit.</ul><p>One would assume that ruling would apply to runners not on the base as well.

Thanks for taking time to draw my attention again to this play.

dual interpretations?
 

Is there some confusion about the meaning of "fielder had a chance to field the ball"? Are some people thinking "fielder had a chance to field the ball but failed to field it and then the ball hit the runner" and others thinking "fielder had a chance to field the ball but could not field it because it touched a runner first"?

As things stand, if a runner is on 2B and the infield is playing back and a line drive hits that runner, on or off the base, I'm calling that runner out even if nobody had a chance at a play. (I'll have a copy of BRD 115-298 handy, too.)

Re: dual interpretations?
 

Greymule:<p>Just remember: One colorful novelist in this thread can't figure out why a Type (b) obstructed runner should receive protection to a base. He things "no base" is a sufficient award in some instances.

Go figure!

Again, thanks. If I were you, I'd laminate the BRD cover, just in case. (grin)

8.4.2I is the play that gives rise to the "string theory" -- in FED ball, connect the infielders with a piece of string. IF the ball passes the string, a runner hit with the ball is not out (assuming no intent, of course). If the ball has not passed the string, the runner is out.

Situation 13 (the second half) seems to contradict this ("If no infielder had been in position to make a play, the ball would remain live.")

Your thanks aren't expected, Carl.........
 

You are welcome, Carl.........LOL


Freix