Double Play or Not?

[soundedlikeastrike]

Wow, 75 posts for an obs. call?

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.

Very simple, R2 is "allowed" to hinder the fielder in this situation. Okay, no interference so that's off the table.

Now to the OBS, no umpire in the world should ever call anything but OBS should a defender move a runner off a base, regardless of intention.

If however the natural action of tagging and a runners unstability combine to take him off the bag, very possibly an out.

But anything more than that uh-uh.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by NFump

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


Quote:


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.

Yes, you're right. He didn't say anything about shoving or pushing. In fact, he really didn't provide any detail whatsoever, either way. Running into R2 could be intentional, accidental, malicious, lots of things. It was his one and only post on this site. He never came back to clarify the contact. But you can't just "get rid of anything intentional," because it is not specified in the OP.

He did give us one clue, in that the runner got knocked off the base and was knocked so far off it apparently, that he was incapacitated enough to not make it back the step or two away from the base he was knocked. He was off the base SO LONG in fact, that the fielder had time to regain his composure, camp under the ball, make the catch, then go back and tag the runner, who, just happened to get jostled a bit from some incidental contact.

Sounds like a BS scenario to me. Are you sure he didn't have time for a smoke too, before going back to tag the runner? This is why I deduced on my own (as Johnny One-Timer didn't provide any additional facts to help reach a logical deduction) that the runner must have been lying on the ground incapacitated. Why on earth else wouldn't he have been able to right himself and get back on the base before Speedy Gonzalez there could make his heroic catch, and return to tag him out? He must have been either injured from the contact, or still down on the ground.

The person who posted this OP is more than likely some professional troll who knows how to push our buttons, and perhaps has posed the question before with spectacular results. He is probably having a good laugh at out expense because he was intentionally vague in his description of the situation.

[Ump153]

Originally Posted by 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.

What in there makes him a rules expert?

Hint: Nothing

Those credentials make him just as well qualified to pitch in the world series as they do to rule on this question.

[rookieblue]

Originally Posted by Ump153

those credentials make him just as well qualified to pi[t]ch in the world series a[s] they do to rule on this question.

Thank you!

Or, as UmpJM said about 30 posts ago, "So, you weren't able to find anything probative, despite your research?"

[SanDiegoSteve]

The troll who posed the original situation did not provide us with much, such as the level of baseball for one thing. This could have been 8 year-olds or college ball. Hey, a little background would have been helpful.

[umpjong]

Just another tid bit, this time from the MLB web site. link below.

"When a situation is not covered, Rule 9.01(c) comes into play. That rule gives the umpire authority to rule on any point not specifically covered in the Rules. In such instances the umpire is instructed to use "common sense and fair play."

I know that this will not change your minds, but thats OK.

Umpires: Feature | MLB.com: Official info


Also, just as I thought you cannot come up with anything to discredit Mr. Markenson so you resort to continual bashing. I'm sure he's concerned that you dont acknowledge his status.

[Ump153]

Originally Posted by umpjong

Also, just as I thought you cannot come up with anything to discredit Mr. Markenson so you resort to continual bashing. I'm sure he's concerned that you dont acknowledge his status.

His status as what? A writer? Narrator? Curator?

Even Markenson doesn't claim experience or expertise as a rules expert. You're the the only one doing that.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by umpjong

Just another tid bit, this time from the MLB web site. link below.

"When a situation is not covered, Rule 9.01(c) comes into play. That rule gives the umpire authority to rule on any point not specifically covered in the Rules. In such instances the umpire is instructed to use "common sense and fair play."

I tried appealing to common sense and fair play in earlier posts. It's no use. Everybody wants an easy out on this play. One out closer to the parking lot I suppose.

[UmpJM]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

I tried appealing to common sense and fair play in earlier posts. It's no use. Everybody wants an easy out on this play. One out closer to the parking lot I suppose.

Steve,

I could be wrong, but mmtech doesn't strike me as a troll. If he were, he likely would have been back "pouring gasoline".

You are correct that there are many aspects of the play which he did NOT describe that would be essential to ruling on the play.

I have no idea if this was a play he saw, had related to him, or created as a "hypothetical".

To me, that's not important. The "interesting question" that the OP raises is, "Since the runner is not obligated to leave his base, and the fielder is not obligated to avoid the runner, how do you properly rule this sitch if you judge no intent by either party?"

I also agree with your kind of "real world" point about, "how can a fielder knock a runner off his base, make a catch, and come back and tag the runner without skippin' a beat" ? (if I may paraphrase). It would certainly be "unusual".

But, let's say it did happen, no intent, either party. Whatever you call, you're likely to be having a "conversation" with somebody. In my suggested ruling, I feel like I've got a "rules basis" for ruling it a train wreck. All I'm hearing with the "protect the runner" ruling is, "common sense and fair play".

They seem to believe that the "special exception" for the runner, that he need not avoid the fielder in this "special case" (i.e., in contact with his base) also imposes an obligation on a "protected fielder" to avoid the runner in this special case. It does not.

I wouldn't be surprised if I never saw this happen in a game. Hadn't considered the question before mmtech's post. At least those of who have participated in this thread know what the relevant rules are (and perhaps some that are "not so much"). I thought it was a good discussion.

JM

[SethPDX]

Originally Posted by 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)

Credible to you.

Nobody is saying he can't write, but not everyone who works for MLB is a rules expert.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by umpjong

Just another tid bit, this time from the MLB web site. link below.

"When a situation is not covered, Rule 9.01(c) comes into play. That rule gives the umpire authority to rule on any point not specifically covered in the Rules. In such instances the umpire is instructed to use "common sense and fair play."

Rule 9.01(c) does not come into play in this situation, which IS covered by the rules. The rules tell us when player contact is illegal, and if it's not illegal then it's legal.

Rule 9.01(c) is a crutch used by some umpires when they have trouble figuring out how to apply the rules correctly. They simply say: "Oh, this outcome seems fair to me, so let's do that."

That's not the correct application of that rule. It has to be something incredibly bizarre and unusual that is really not mentioned anywhere in the rules. Player contact would not qualify; a pitched ball hitting a bird would.

[umpjong]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Rule 9.01(c) does not come into play in this situation, which IS covered by the rules. The rules tell us when player contact is illegal, and if it's not illegal then it's legal.

Rule 9.01(c) is a crutch used by some umpires when they have trouble figuring out how to apply the rules correctly. They simply say: "Oh, this outcome seems fair to me, so let's do that."

That's not the correct application of that rule. It has to be something incredibly bizarre and unusual that is really not mentioned anywhere in the rules. Player contact would not qualify; a pitched ball hitting a bird would.

Golly, you mean you found a rule that specifically states that a fielder may push a runner off a base and then tag him. Gee share it with us...

And MLB uses a crutch every time it adds an approved (A.R.) ruling. Why didnt you tell us earlier that you are the rules expert.

Oh and by the way did you see the last statement by MLB in regards to the pitch hitting the bird play. If not here it is.

"In this game, the umpires called it no pitch, as this was the fairest thing to do." Nope MLB rules are not at all concerned with fairness and is never a guiding force.....

[NFump]

Originally Posted by soundedlikeastrike

Wow, 75 posts for an obs. call?

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.

Very simple, R2 is "allowed" to hinder the fielder in this situation. Okay, no interference so that's off the table.

Now to the OBS, no umpire in the world should ever call anything but OBS should a defender move a runner off a base, regardless of intention.

If however the natural action of tagging and a runners unstability combine to take him off the bag, very possibly an out.

But anything more than that uh-uh.

Rule 2.00

OBSTRUCTION is the act of a fielder who, while not in possession of the ball and not in the act of fielding the ball, impedes the progress of any runner.

This is why I said to rule out any intent on the part of either player, because intentionally running into the runner or intentionally interfering with the fielder changes the play and the ruling. No intent is stated or implied in the OP.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by umpjong

Golly, you mean you found a rule that specifically states that a fielder may push a runner off a base and then tag him. Gee share it with us...

And MLB uses a crutch every time it adds an approved (A.R.) ruling. Why didnt you tell us earlier that you are the rules expert.

Oh and by the way did you see the last statement by MLB in regards to the pitch hitting the bird play. If not here it is.

"In this game, the umpires called it no pitch, as this was the fairest thing to do." Nope MLB rules are not at all concerned with fairness and is never a guiding force.....

Impressive. Every statement here is a straw man or a personal attack. Thanks for your contribution.

[NFump]

I thought the "pushing" thing had been covered already? Oh wait, that was shoving. Okay, there is no shoving or pushing or any hint of something intentional on the part of either the runner or the fielder in the original post.

Again, intent changes the play and the ruling. If fielder intentionally pushes runner off base then rule obstruction and place runner back on bag, if runner intentionally interferes, call interference and runner out. We're not arguing any of that. The question is sans intent on the part of either player is this an out?