Double Play or Not?

[rookieblue]

No.



It's two outs.

[Ump153]

Originally Posted by mbyron

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

While he's looking up "straw man" you'll probably have time to start a new summer read. Good job.

[Paul L]

Originally Posted by NFump

If fielder intentionally pushes runner off base then rule obstruction and place runner back on bag.

So what do you say to DC when he comes out and says "Excuse me, Mr. Umpire, sir, but even if my fielder's pushing the runner off the base was intentional, how can you call obstruction when my fielder was in the act of fielding a ball?"

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by Paul L

So what do you say to DC when he comes out and says "Excuse me, Mr. Umpire, sir, but even if my fielder's pushing the runner off the base was intentional, how can you call obstruction when my fielder was in the act of fielding a ball?"

You tell him to sit down and shut his pie hole, because you got the call right.

[NFump]

If the fielder is intentionally pushing the runner off the base he's not in the act of fielding is he. Even if he then resumes his "act of fielding" and catches the ball, at the time of the push he was not fielding the ball, he was obstructing the runner.

[NFump]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

You tell him to sit down and shut his pie hole, because you got the call right.

LOL, good one

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Paul L

So what do you say to DC when he comes out and says "Excuse me, Mr. Umpire, sir, but even if my fielder's pushing the runner off the base was intentional, how can you call obstruction when my fielder was in the act of fielding a ball?"

Not everything a fielder does when fielding a batted ball is legal. He can't punch a runner in the nose, for example.

The runner's right to remain on the base must mean something. To me, it means that the fielder cannot deliberately move him off the base.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by mbyron

The runner's right to remain on the base must mean something. To me, it means that the fielder cannot deliberately move him off the base.

Which is all we've been arguing here for lo, these many pages now.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

Which is all we've been arguing here for lo, these many pages now.

You've been arguing something different and stronger. You've been arguing that the runner's right to remain on the base is absolute. That's why you're protecting him back to the base, no matter whether the contact is incidental or intentional.

I've been arguing that the runner's right to remain on the base is limited by the fielder's right to field a batted ball. That's why I distinguish between the two cases: incidental contact, play on. Intentional contact, protect the runner.

[mbyron]

OK. Just wanted to be the 100th post in this thread.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by mbyron

You've been arguing something different and stronger. You've been arguing that the runner's right to remain on the base is absolute. That's why you're protecting him back to the base, no matter whether the contact is incidental or intentional.

I've been arguing that the runner's right to remain on the base is limited by the fielder's right to field a batted ball. That's why I distinguish between the two cases: incidental contact, play on. Intentional contact, protect the runner.

No, I was arguing that we don't know from the OP exactly what F6 did. Was it intentional? It sounded that way to me, so I was basing it on an intentional act. Go back and read some of my posts. I said that I didn't believe that F6 could accidentally knock the runner off the base, make the catch, then tag the runner. I said if the contact was strong enough to knock the runner off the base and incapacitate him so much that he couldn't get back on his base, then it would have had to have been one helluva collision, which most likely would have resulted in both players falling to the ground in a pile. So, by deduction, I reasoned that F6 threw R2 a shoulder on purpose, made the catch, then got his DP by cheating. That is what I have argued from the beginning. I do not buy into it being "incidental contact" in this case, because it just doesn't add up when you look at all the facts like Perry Mason would. That's how I learned to analyze things as a small boy, and have carried on that tradition. Your witness, Mr. Burger.

[NFump]

OBS/INT or none?

This is what we've been arguing all along. The first part of YOUR post(linked above) is what the original question was about and what we've been saying the whole time.
That is how we got the double play. Accidental live ball, play on runner out if tagged while off base. Intent on the part of either player kill it and rule accordingly.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by NFump

OBS/INT or none?

This is what we've been arguing all along. The first part of YOUR post(linked above) is what the original question was about and what we've been saying the whole time.
That is how we got the double play. Accidental live ball, play on runner out if tagged while off base. Intent on the part of either player kill it and rule accordingly.

This is what I said (in this other thread you have referenced):

Let me be crystal clear:

If F6 clearly accidentally knocks a runner who is not even paying attention off the base, then that runner is liable to be called out if tagged. Nobody is disputing this.

If F6 clearly intentionally knocks a runner off the base, the runner is not liable to be called out. Nobody is disputing this.

Argument over.

What part of that is wrong or unclear?

I contend that the OP didn't state whether or not it was intentional, but that is the way it reads to me. Without any further information, it is the most logical scenario. Intentional, for reasons I've already stated.

[mmtech]

I thought the information in the original post should have been enough to make a definitive ruling but since this is apparently not covered by the rules of baseball and is a judgment call I can add a few facts.

I was the runner at 2nd in a league softball game. Since the ball was hit directly over the base F6 and the ball converged at the base and he made the catch while running into me standing on the base. I went down to the ground off the base (I don't know why that should be so startling when a body in motion makes contact with a body in place) and F6 tagged me (he did not have time to go out and get a beer).

It was not my intention to provoke a lengthy discussion but to get a ruling. What has followed has proved enlightening.

[Steven Tyler]

Hahahaha