Double Play or Not?

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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."

[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?