Ball strikes runner

[Lilblue612]

In a Little League game, played under the official Little League rules, the following play occured with one out and a runner on first base. The batter hits a grounder between the first and second baseman. The first baseman attempts for the ball, but it glances of his glove and strikes the runner moving from first to second base. However, in my opinion the second baseman still had a reasonable chance at making a play at first or second base if the runner did not come in contact with the ball. I therefore called the runner out, and awarded the batter first base. The question is, even if the first baseman makes some contact with the ball, is a runner who then comes in contact with the ball out if another fielder had a reasonable chance at making an out had the runner not struck the ball? After consulting the little league rule book I believe my call may have been correct, but could not make a definitive conclusion. Any advice or criticism would be appreciated.

[bluezebra]

If the deflection caused the ball to hit the runner, I would not call interference.

Bob

[brandda]

This is 7.09m and I hate it. Technically if the second baseman could still have made the play at first or second, and the ball hits the runner after passing the fielder, then the runner is out for interference.

The problem with this rule is that once the ball is deflected, it's awfully hard for anyone to make that play. I also think that this is somewhat contradictory to 7.08f.

Anyway, it sounds like you made the right call, but it's one that I hate to make.

[Rich Ives]

Deflected ball - not interference.

NAPBL 4.5 (emphasis theirs)

"The concept of a runner being in jeopardy after the ball goes past an infielder and strikes him in a situation where another infielder still has a chance to make a play on the ball applies ONLY when the ball PASSES the first infielder without being touched or deflected by him. This concept dows NOT APPLY if the ball is touched or deflected by the first infielder, even though another infielder has a chance to make a play on the ball.

"The reasoning for the above concept is that a runner cannot be expected to avoid a deflected ball while he is running and should not, therefore, be in jeopardy of being called out for being struck by such a defelcted ball."

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by brandda
This is 7.09m and I hate it. Technically if the second baseman could still have made the play at first or second, and the ball hits the runner after passing the fielder, then the runner is out for interference.

Yes, it's 7.09(m), but I think you're misreading it.

"If a fair ball ... touches the runner after having been deflected by a fielder, the umpire shall not declare the runner out ..."

[brandda]

Bob -
Keep reading. I do not have it in front of me but there is something like "unless another defensive player would have had a play on the ball had it not been deflected."

Rich -
The LL rule is different. It explicitly outlines the situation you describe and says that the runner is out if the deflected ball could have been played had it not been deflected. That's why I hate it.

[Rich Ives]

brandda

LL is OBR-based, and follows OBR interps etc. where the rules aren't modified.

7.09(m) is word-for-word IDENTICAL in OBR and LL

and

7.08(f) has the same words, albeit in a slightly different format, in both OBR and LL

[joemoore]

I think the rule is being mis-read.

The phrase "...In making such a decision, the umpire must be convinced the ball passed through or by the infielder and that no other infielder had the chance to make a play on the ball..."

The ball must be untouched (through or by) and the other fielder must have a play in order for it to be interference.

Why else would the umpire have to be sure that the ball went through or by the fielder untouched? The only way the rule makes sense is that there is no interference on a deflected ball.

[brandda]

I wish I had it in front of me but I am out of town and won't be able to look at it till Friday. If I have misread it, then I apologize. Actually I hope you guys are right because I have always hated that rule the way I understood it.

Actually, this raises a completely separate question. Anybody know why LL doesn't post their rules online? It seems so obvious, but there is almost a religious fervor against it. Just curious.

[Rich Ives]

LL is trying to protect it's image, trademarks, and copyrights. There are too many non-affiliated leagues either passing themselves off as LL or otherwise using LL in their name.

[Marty Rogers]

A batted ball that deflects off a fielder (or an
umpire after passing a fielder) is alive and in play.
If it hits a runner it is still alive and in play.