Double Play or Not?

[SanDiegoSteve]

The way I read the OP looks like F6 very carelessly knocked R2 off the base in a rather violent collision. Why would you reward such carelessness by calling the runner out for getting blindsided by an inattentive fielder?

7.01 A runner acquires the right to an unoccupied base when he touches it before he is out. He is then entitled to it until he is put out, or forced to vacate it for another runner legally entitled to that base.

It says he has the right to stand on his base and not get shoved off, and is entitled to it until forced off by another runner who is entitled to it. It doesn't say until some oafish player pushes him off.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

The way I read the OP looks like F6 very carelessly knocked R2 off the base in a rather violent collision. Why would you reward such carelessness by calling the runner out for getting blindsided by an inattentive fielder?

You're quite right to point out that the runner is entitled to the base. However, the fielder is also entitled to go where he will (and cannot be convicted of "carelessness" since he has no duty to care) because he is protected while fielding a batted ball.

Thus you have two players with a perfect right to be where they are when they collide. That's precisely why the collision -- no matter how violent -- is legal contact both ways.

So far one side of this conversation has insisted on misunderstanding the situation in one of two ways:
1. They decline to see that the fielder is also protected and has an absolute right to go anywhere while fielding a batted ball, or
2. They confuse this case with one where the fielder intentionally pushes the runner off the base.
These misunderstandings prevent a correct ruling in the OP.

As JM helpfully points out: if F6 drops the ball, the defense will have 0 outs on the play. If he makes the catch and tags R2 off the base, it's a double play. "Play the bounce."

[umpjong]

I just knew you would ignore the English language....

7.00—The Runner.
7.01 A runner acquires the right to an unoccupied base when he touches it before he is out. He is then entitled to it until he is put out, (again, this refers to the put out occurring prior to the runner losing his entitlement) or forced to vacate it for another runner legally entitled to that base.

Tell me anywhere in this rule, where the runners entitlement is rescinded when a fielder knocks him off while trying to field a ball. Or show me anywhere in the rule book that gives a fielder precedence in this play. I have given you a rule cite giving the runner such precedence, so dispute it. And oh, this rule does absolutely apply to the OP...

Bottom line, as you once stated, you can continue to call this (if it ever happens) and then you can explain and eject a couple on the way. I seriously doubt an argument or ejection even occurs with the way we advise (as does the rule book) this play to be called. (again with rule book backing)

Thank You, and come again...

[UmpJM]

umpjong,

This is a completely specious argument.

All Rule 7.01 defines is which runner is "entitled" to the base should two try to occupy it concurrently (and that a runner cannot return to a previously occupied base once the F1 engages the rubber for the ensuing pitch).

By rule, a fielder who is "in the act of fielding" a fair batted ball is equally "entitled" to that space.

When a runner and fielder collide in a situation where they each have "equal right of way" under the rules, it's legal contact - commonly referred to as a "train wreck" - and the proper ruling is, "live ball, play the bounce".

Your earlier "expert testimony" post isn't even specious - it's laughable. You're citing a museum curator who is paraphrasing a "rules student" who thinks the MLB rules committee should clarify the proper ruling in a materially different situation. Well whoop-de-doo.

Heck, Joe Morgan is IN the HOF, and he doesn't know Jack about the rules. Heck, I've written articles, authored and delivered presentations, and narrated videos (well, sorta) about the actual rules of baseball - for audiences of umpires.

Because the rules in this unusual situation don't jive with your personal notion of "fairness", you feel entitled to "make up a rule" to protect the poor runner who got knocked off his base by a legal collision.

I mean, what if the collision prevented the F6 from catching the ball and the R2 advanced to 3B? Are you going to put the runner back at 2B? That would certainly be the "fair" thing to do under your suggested logic. Utter nonsense.

JM

[TussAgee11]

Originally Posted by umpjong

Thank You, and come again...

Well, now you're just annoying.

Let me try to spell it out. Yes I have read everything you've posted, as painful as it was. Forget what HOF guy says who isn't the rulebook, forget "fairness", forget everything.

SDS has aptly pointed out that the runner is entitled to the base.

JM/mbyron and myself have pointed out that the fielder is entitled to field the ball.

OP says "Shortstop running to make the catch runs into the runner knocking him off the base" No push, doesn't seem to be anything intentional, although I'd like to see the play unfold to make sure. But lets say its just a running over, both players with heads up looking at the ball.

By ruling OBS and protecting him back, you are ignoring a rule (don't have the book in front of me to give you the number, but its been quoted earlier in this thread.) A fielder has the right to field the ball off the bat.

By ruling INT, you are ignoring the fact that the runner is entitled to that base, as SDS has quoted.

So, no OBS + no INT = ???

(hint: play on)

From this point, all we have is a runner that is being tagged off the bag. And its not anyone looking for outs, its a good interp. I don't care who I have to eject, its a good interp. Its the best one we got.

Complex at first, but simple when you think about it.

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by umpjong

I just knew you would ignore the English language....

Huh? Both mbyron and umpjm are not only using English properly, they, unlike you, demonstrate knowledge of the intent an propere application of the rules. Neither of them are attempting to justify a position by (intentional?) misapplication of a rule.

[cbfoulds]

Originally Posted by MrUmpire

Huh? Both mbyron and umpjm are not only using English properly, they, unlike you, demonstrate knowledge of the intent an propere application of the rules. Neither of them are attempting to justify a position by (intentional?) misapplication of a rule.

Thank you.
I have been gnawing my keyboard to keep myself from posting a [no doubt less temperate] similar comment.

Put me in the "play the bounce" group.

[NFump]

7.11

[Paul L]

Obstruction requires that the fielder not be in the act of fielding the ball. So how does mbyron justify placing the runner back on the base if the fielder intentionally pushes him off while moving to a fly ball? Unsportsmanlike conduct/malicious contact? Or is the act of fielding interrupted for the moment when F6 is pushing R2 off second? Or is it just common sense and fair play? Better theories welcomed.

I'd go with the fielding-interrupted theory, although USC might also be present. As the mbyon camp has argued in this thread, common sense and fair play, attractive as they may be, have no rule support.

Umpjong's "entitlement" argument is weak, but not completely specious. But his interpretation of entitlement to mean that R2 cannot be forcibly moved off his base, even if unintentional, seems designed to prop up his common sense and fair play theory with any rule that arguably supports his position. (BTW, his strident tone and use of the adverb "clearly" undermine his persuasiveness.) Entitlement here means in preference to some other runner.

The Gant/Hbrek play is different because by the time Hbrek might be forcing Gant off the base, he is no longer fielding the ball, having caught it a quarter-second before, and thus is subject to an obstruction call.

Rule 7.11, that an offensive team member must give a fielder space to make a play, seems generally to apply to players other than runners and batters. They have more specific rules that apply to them, such as runners on base do not interfere with a fielder if unintentional (7.08(b) comment, paragraph 2). But nice find!

So play the bounce, says I. But I'll be looking closely for the fielder realizing that a runner on base is in his path and not making a reasonable attempt to avoid contact. If contact is truly inadvertent, play on, and runner better do his job of re-establishing contact with his base before the fielder catches the ball and tags him with it. That's baseball (7.08(c)).

This is a fascinating discussion.

[TussAgee11]

7.09 (j) comment could be extrapolated to this situation.

[QUOTE]Rule 7.09(j) Comment: When a catcher and batter-runner going to first base have contact when the catcher is fielding the ball, there is generally no violation and nothing should be called. “Obstruction” by a fielder attempting to field a ball should be called only in very flagrant and violent cases because the rules give him the right of way, but of course such “right of way” is not a license to, for example, intentionally trip a runner even though fielding the ball. If the catcher is fielding the ball and the first baseman or pitcher obstructs a runner going to first base “obstruction” shall be called and the base runner awarded first base.[\QUOTE]

I know that the comment is discussing B/R and F2, but the highlighted sentence tells us that unless something flagrant is going on, this play is a train wreck. (Fisk v Armbrister)

Could we read this comment as F2 : B/R :: F6 : R2 in relation to the OP?

[NFump]

Now there's a nice find.

[Paul L]

Yeah, much better theory than my fielding-interrupted theory. Thanks.

[SanDiegoSteve]

One last attempt at this for me:

In the OP, if F6 had just accidentally ran into R2 while going for the ball, wouldn't he most likely be startled enough by the surprise collision to misplay the ball? It seems like he could have shoved the runner to the ground on purpose, made the catch, and had the presence of mind to tag the runner he plowed over. If he had "accidentally" run into R2, he most likely would have lost his balance and fell as well, like two fielders colliding in the outfield. But instead, it was only R2 that fell to the ground, leading me to believe that F6 had fully anticipated the contact, and was ready to counterbalance his body.

It's just a theory that I have.

BTW, has anyone else noticed that the person who wrote the OP only posted the one time and never came back with more information, leading to everyone here jumping to various conclusions. The poster could have helped out by supplying a little more detail, so we could develop a clearer picture of exactly what happened on the play.

[umpjong]

I just love the way some would just brush aside this mans credentials.
BRUCE MARKUSEN was the Manager of Programs at the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum in Cooperstown, New York from 1994 to 2004. He is the author of Baseball's Last Dynasty: Charlie Finley's Oakland A's (which won the prestigious Seymour Award from the Society for American Baseball Research), Roberto Clemente, and The Orlando Cepeda Story. For the Hall of Fame, he has written numerous articles for publication, edited the Hall of Fame's Yearbook and quarterly newsletter, narrated Hall of Fame video productions, and interviewed most of the current living Hall inductees. Markusen is the regularly featured co-host (along with ESPN's Billy Sample) of the "Hall of Fame Hour" on MLB Radio.

I think he has a bit more credibility than any of us when it comes to MLB concerns. If you can produce evidence to support your claims of him being the hack you propose, bring it on. I think you will find (as I did) that he is very well respected in MLB circles. (he has been and is still hired by MLB so take your best shot) You obviously dont want to give him his due respect because he doesnt portray your opinions.......

Bottom line is that there are obviously two camps here that are set in their ways. I am very comfortable with the application/interpretations of the OBR and the only credible source (written) that has been presented. (Please present someone that contradicts him if you can)

[NFump]

So you're saying the SS intentionally pushed the runner off the base then?


Quote:

Originally Posted by mmtech
Runner at 2nd, 1 out. Pop-up over 2nd base. Runner stays on base. Shortstop running to make the catch runs into the runner knocking him off the base. Shortstop catches the pop-up and tags the runner who is off the base. Double play or not?

Here's the OP just so you don't have to flip pages . Doesn't appear to be any shoving mentioned, just running into, nor any knocking to the ground just off the base.

Get rid of anything intentional in the OP, no intent is indicated nor should any be assumed. Fielder in attempt to field fly ball runs into and knocks runner off of base then tags said runner while is still off the base.