Double Play or Not?

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by mbyron

If you're talking mainly about a case where F6 intentionally pushes the runner off the base, then we're not disagreeing, because I'd rule the same as you. But in the OP, I've got two outs.

Exactly, except I read the OP as intentionally, as was stated, "running into the runner," not just "bumping into him incidentally." BTW, your definition of incidental is not correct. Incidental does not equal "not illegal." It means casual, or secondary, or minor. Nothing to do with legality whatsoever.

[UmpJM]

Well, I'm a little late to this party, but I've got to agree with mbyron and jicecone - as long as the fielder was making a legitimate attempt to field the batted ball and the runner did not intentionally interfere, this is nothing but a "train wreck" - live ball, play the bounce.

The rules grant equal opportunity to the protected fielder and the runner in contact with his base to occupy the same space at the same time in this situation. When contact/a collision occurs in these circumstances, whatever happens happens. It is, as J/R says (and mbyron in this thread), "incidental contact".

If the runner happens to lose contact with his base as a result of the collision, he is liable to be tagged out while off his base. If the fielder happens to be unable to catch the ball as a result of the collision, too bad - live ball, play the bounce.

JM

[TussAgee11]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

Well, I'm a little late to this party,

Don't worry about being late to the party, I'm here so lets get it going again

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

but I've got to agree with mbyron and jicecone - as long as the fielder was making a legitimate attempt to field the batted ball and the runner did not intentionally interfere, this is nothing but a "train wreck" - live ball, play the bounce.

I agree. This is a case of everybody doing what they should be doing. The way I read the OP, the fielder was running with his head up, and R2 was probably staring up at the ball. He's entitled to that base, F6 is entitled to make a play. Sounds like a classic train wreck to me. Whatever happens from this point on happens.

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

If the runner happens to lose contact with his base as a result of the collision, he is liable to be tagged out while off his base. If the fielder happens to be unable to catch the ball as a result of the collision, too bad - live ball, play the bounce.

And not only do I agree, but if the other side of the argument is talking about "what's fair", its hard to come up with a ruling that isn't any fairer than this.

------

If R2 shoulders F6, we have INT every time.
If F6 shoulders / pushes R2, we have OBS every time.

If both are staring at the ball, and two bodies collide, we have NOTHING every time.

Want a rule? 7.08 c applies because nothing else in the book does.

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

Well, I'm a little late to this party, but I've got to agree with mbyron and jicecone - as long as the fielder was making a legitimate attempt to field the batted ball and the runner did not intentionally interfere, this is nothing but a "train wreck" - live ball, play the bounce.

The rules grant equal opportunity to the protected fielder and the runner in contact with his base to occupy the same space at the same time in this situation. When contact/a collision occurs in these circumstances, whatever happens happens. It is, as J/R says (and mbyron in this thread), "incidental contact".

If the runner happens to lose contact with his base as a result of the collision, he is liable to be tagged out while off his base. If the fielder happens to be unable to catch the ball as a result of the collision, too bad - live ball, play the bounce.

JM

I share this opinion except in FED where the base offers no protection from INT to the runner. INT by the runner need not be intentional.

[UmpJM]

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

I share this opinion except in FED where the base offers no protection from INT to the runner. ...

dash,

Both 8-2-8 and 8.2.4I suggest that the principle is the same in FED - the runner need not vacate his base to avoid a fielder in the act of fielding a batted ball. (Well, an "in-flight" batted ball, anyway.)

Why do you think FED differs in this regard?

JM

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

dash,

Both 8-2-8 and 8.2.4I suggest that the principle is the same in FED - the runner need not vacate his base to avoid a fielder in the act of fielding a batted ball. (Well, an "in-flight" batted ball, anyway.)

Why do you think FED differs in this regard?

JM

8-2-8 "...A runner need not vacate his base to permit a fielder to catch a fly ball in the infield, but he may not interfere..."

Nothing about intent. Seems to me the runner must avoid the fielder, even if he is on the base.

[steveshane67]

A novices opinion....

Rule 7.08(b) Comment: A runner who is adjudged to have hindered a fielder who is attempting to make a play on a batted ball is out whether it was intentional or not.
If, however, the runner has contact with a legally occupied base when he hinders the fielder, he shall not be called out unless, in the umpire’s judgment, such hindrance, whether it occurs on fair or foul territory, is intentional.

So I would look at the situation first by judging the runners intent or lack there of. The way I picture this play, the runner watches the fly ball as he retreats to 2B, and continues to watch the ball as he is run into by the SS. I dont know why that would be considered intentional hindrance by the runner.

If the runner was watching the SS the whole time, then I could make a case it was intentional hindrance vis-a-vis the runners lack moving (while still in contact with 2B) out of the way of the SS.

Originally Posted by mbyron

1. I don't think you know what 'incidental contact' means. Contact is incidental when it is not illegal. Did we have OBS by F6? No, since he's fielding a batted ball. Did we have INT by R2? No, since he's entitled to remain on the base. Did we have any other illegal act by either player? No, they were doing what they were supposed to do. But we did have a collision, and no matter how forceful it was, if it was not illegal, it was incidental.

What if the SS lowers his shoulder or puts his hands up in a "push up" like position, do you still have non-obstruction on the SS?

Originally Posted by mbyron

2. I can't fathom how you can envision F6 chasing a fly ball and intentionally running into R2. He's watching the ball!

not to be a pr*ck but you must not play many sports bc that isnt that hard. given a high enough pop up (ie enough time) I could knock over the runner, high five the second baseman and still make the catch.

IMO, the fact that the SS caught the ball is more proof that the his contact with the runner was not incidental. If the SS had no idea he was going to make contact with the runner, he most likely would lose his balance and not be able to make the catch. Think of it this way, if you were blindfolded and had no idea you were about to do a football ball security drill (with stiffer contact than shown in the videdo)

Football Running Back: Gauntlet Drill for Ball Security | PlaySportsTV

you'd stumble at a minimum, and theres a good chance you'd fall. now if you werent blindfolded and you knew what was coming, you could lean into it and run through it and remain on your feet and moving forward.

Originally Posted by mbyron

I certainly agree that if I judged that F6 intentionally pushed R2 off the base, that would not result in an out. But then again, that would be an illegal act by F6, and not incidental contact.

Is there a difference between blatant pushing or blatant shouldering or subtle forearm shove?

[mbyron]

This is getting a little silly. Of course, if you change the case so that the contact is illegal, I'd agree that it's illegal and rule accordingly.

The only thing you've added to the discussion (beyond a personal remark about me) is your opinion that you could knock a runner off the base while watching the ball. Maybe you could, if the ball were high enough and the runner weren't paying attention. So?

[umpjong]

After a little (actually a lot) of research.....

About the author:
Bruce Markusen has worked at the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum since 1995. In September of 2000, he became the Hall of Fame's Manager of Program Presentations, after having worked as a Senior Researcher in the Hall's Library. In his various capacities at the Hall of Fame, he has written numerous articles for publication, conducted audio-visual interviews for the Hall's archives, and narrated Hall of Fame video productions.

There is no provision in the written rules that says a fielder can’t bump a runner off the bag. “There is no such rule,” says Burley. “I understand that it is commonly believed that there is, but there is not. It’s not a rule and so there is only a general practice, [but] there is no clarity. A hard slap-tag that pushes a runner off the bag (when he had just touched it) can easily be called an out.”

This is a classic example of a situation that is not covered by the Official Baseball Rules, the published rule book that is distributed each year for use in running major and minor league games. Rather, it is an example of “practical enforcement”—a rule that is applied in general practice—in true-to-life game situations even though it is not specifically spelled out by the rules. (Now it’s also possible that such a rule is covered under the more thorough rules manual that is given to each major league umpire; this manual, which covers the rules in far more detail than the Official Baseball Rules, is not made available to the general public.) Such a ruling, which would allow the runner to remain safe after being pushed or bumped off the bag by the fielder’s body, has been applied in a practical sense for as long as I've been watching baseball (which is since the early 1970s). And that’s really the common sense approach. Otherwise, fielders would be trying to push runners off the base at every opportunity, making baseball the equivalent of bumper cars or block-and-tackle football.

So what are we to make of all this? In general, it seems that umpires will allow a fielder the hard slap-tag, but not a body-to-body collision that forces a runner off the base. That appears to be the general application, but these situations would become much clearer if baseball’s Playing Rules Committee would include a specific provision in its published rules, so that everybody knows the deal.

Link to entire article/reference

Oakland A's Fan Coalition - Athletics baseball enthusiasts dedicated to watching a winner

[mbyron]

Thanks. Still not relevant though: the OP is about F6 fielding a batted ball, not playing on a runner with a "hard slap tag" or "pushing him off base."

I'm not sure why you repeatedly decline to see the difference: in the OP the fielder is protected, in your case, he isn't.

But go ahead and keep saying, "it's just like this other case with a different ruling," and rule on it as you wish. It's your choice to remain invincibly ignorant.

[UmpJM]

Originally Posted by umpjong

After a little (actually a lot) of research.....

...

umpjong,

So, you weren't able to find anything probative, despite your research?

JM

[umpjong]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Thanks. Still not relevant though: the OP is about F6 fielding a batted ball, not playing on a runner with a "hard slap tag" or "pushing him off base."

I'm not sure why you repeatedly decline to see the difference: in the OP the fielder is protected, in your case, he isn't.

But go ahead and keep saying, "it's just like this other case with a different ruling," and rule on it as you wish. It's your choice to remain invincibly ignorant.

You know I have been more than civil, it seems that you are the one who does not want to face reality. You have shown nothing in regards to your application of the rules, which shows why you probably will continue to work lower levels.
And you refuse to accept that none of the written examples and interpretations distinguishes between your absurd notion that there is a difference between a fielder knocking a runner off a base making a play or not. Please read the article in total without blinders on and you might actually learn something. I'm actually tired of your incompetence.

[umpjong]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

umpjong,

So, you weren't able to find anything probative, despite your research?

JM

Read the article.

[UmpJM]

Originally Posted by umpjong

Read the article.

umpjong,

I have.

JM

[umpjong]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

umpjong,

I have.

JM

I have shown a creditable source on the subject. In all of the resources looked at there has been no reference to your contention that a runner can be tagged out by a fielder after being physically pushed off of a base by a fielder. In fact every one has indicated that the runners initiative was the key variable. If you can come up with one resource/interpretation or link that supports your position then I will listen. Thats all I ask.