Double Play or Not?

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by mbyron

No error, no omission.

There is no rule that protects a runner who is bumped off the base by incidental contact. At lower levels you might do that, but not HS or above.

Incidental contact? Where did you read that? I don't believe "incidental contact" would be forceful enough to knock the runner off the base. It seemed rather intentional to me, from the way the OP was written. He didn't say "bumped off the base," he said "runs into the runner knocking him off the base." Sound like F6 was out of control running amok and carelessly collided with a runner on his legally obtained base. The runner was not interfering with a play, so the fielder doesn't have the right to push him out of the way to get to where the ball was going to land.

I'm not penalizing the runner, no matter what level of ball they're playing. And, I would wager that I would get less grief calling it my way, than if I called the runner out for the wrong actions of F6. I call the runner out and watch all hell break loose. No thanks.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

Incidental contact? Where did you read that? I don't believe "incidental contact" would be forceful enough to knock the runner off the base. It seemed rather intentional to me, from the way the OP was written. He didn't say "bumped off the base," he said "runs into the runner knocking him off the base." Sound like F6 was out of control running amok and carelessly collided with a runner on his legally obtained base. The runner was not interfering with a play, so the fielder doesn't have the right to push him out of the way to get to where the ball was going to land.

I'm not penalizing the runner, no matter what level of ball they're playing. And, I would wager that I would get less grief calling it my way, than if I called the runner out for the wrong actions of F6. I call the runner out and watch all hell break loose. No thanks.

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.

After incidental contact, we play on. And you have yet to come up with a shred of rules backing for your wacky notion that a runner is protected back to his base after incidental contact.

2. I can't fathom how you can envision F6 chasing a fly ball and intentionally running into R2. He's watching the ball! My internal video of this case has F6 running across the field, slowing down near the base, and bumping R2 (who was not paying attention) just before the catch. If the ball were farther right, F4 would have taken it, so he's not running full tilt across the base. But the point is irrelevant: the force of the contact doesn't matter, as long as it's incidental.

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. To my mind, there's a significant difference here: in the OP, F6 is doing what he's supposed to -- fielding the ball. In your case, he's not -- he's pushing the runner off base. That's a difference that makes a difference to the ruling.

3. Finally, and again, I think either of our calls will yield equal grief from coaches. I maintain that the rules are on my side, as 7.08(c) clearly applies to this situation.

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. And barring something new and pertinent in this thread, I think we've covered it pretty thoroughly and won't be posting further.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Whatever

[umpjong]

Originally Posted by mbyron

And barring something new and pertinent in this thread, I think we've covered it pretty thoroughly and won't be posting further.

Yet you still ignore the interpretation of the Hrbek play. It was clearly ruled that the runners initiative, not the defensive players initiative was the key to whether the runner was to be declared out or safe. And if you contend that the plays are different, how? The defensive player either knocked him off of the base or he didnt. The runner is either protected because of the act by the fielder or he is not because he came off by his own initiative. Seems simple to me. (And Oh yeah, fair also.)

[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.

[JJ]

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

So I'm supposed to use my baseball acumen to discern if that fielder intentionally or unintentionally pushed that runner off the base? If you allow the runner to be tagged out after being pushed off the base, you're turning baseball into football. Not a good idea.

JJ

[UmpJM]

Originally Posted by JJ

So I'm supposed to use my baseball acumen to discern if that fielder intentionally or unintentionally pushed that runner off the base? If you allow the runner to be tagged out after being pushed off the base, you're turning baseball into football. Not a good idea.

JJ

JJ,

Yes, you are supposed to use your baseball acumen to judge whether the fielder intentionally knocked the runner off the base or was making a legitimate effort to field the batted ball.

Like football, baseball is a "contact sport". Unlike football, it is not an "intentional contact sport".

As described, the essential question in the OP is whether anyone is "penalized" - or aspects of the play are "nullified" - because the result of the legal contact was the runner losing contact with his base and subsequently being tagged out.

To me, there is no basis in the rules for anything other than, "live ball, play the bounce". As it would be if the OP were changed so that the contact prevented the F6 from making the catch.

Legal contact, whatever happens, happens. Fair is actually playing by the rules rather than injecting a foreign notion of "fairness" because something weird happens.

I do not believe an "official interpretation" exists that would clarify the question.

JM

[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.

[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)