Double Play or Not?

[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?

[mbyron]

This is getting a little silly. Of course, if you change the case so that the contact is illegal, I'd agree that it's illegal and rule accordingly.

The only thing you've added to the discussion (beyond a personal remark about me) is your opinion that you could knock a runner off the base while watching the ball. Maybe you could, if the ball were high enough and the runner weren't paying attention. So?

[umpjong]

After a little (actually a lot) of research.....

About the author:
Bruce Markusen has worked at the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum since 1995. In September of 2000, he became the Hall of Fame's Manager of Program Presentations, after having worked as a Senior Researcher in the Hall's Library. In his various capacities at the Hall of Fame, he has written numerous articles for publication, conducted audio-visual interviews for the Hall's archives, and narrated Hall of Fame video productions.

There is no provision in the written rules that says a fielder can’t bump a runner off the bag. “There is no such rule,” says Burley. “I understand that it is commonly believed that there is, but there is not. It’s not a rule and so there is only a general practice, [but] there is no clarity. A hard slap-tag that pushes a runner off the bag (when he had just touched it) can easily be called an out.”

This is a classic example of a situation that is not covered by the Official Baseball Rules, the published rule book that is distributed each year for use in running major and minor league games. Rather, it is an example of “practical enforcement”—a rule that is applied in general practice—in true-to-life game situations even though it is not specifically spelled out by the rules. (Now it’s also possible that such a rule is covered under the more thorough rules manual that is given to each major league umpire; this manual, which covers the rules in far more detail than the Official Baseball Rules, is not made available to the general public.) Such a ruling, which would allow the runner to remain safe after being pushed or bumped off the bag by the fielder’s body, has been applied in a practical sense for as long as I've been watching baseball (which is since the early 1970s). And that’s really the common sense approach. Otherwise, fielders would be trying to push runners off the base at every opportunity, making baseball the equivalent of bumper cars or block-and-tackle football.

So what are we to make of all this? In general, it seems that umpires will allow a fielder the hard slap-tag, but not a body-to-body collision that forces a runner off the base. That appears to be the general application, but these situations would become much clearer if baseball’s Playing Rules Committee would include a specific provision in its published rules, so that everybody knows the deal.

Link to entire article/reference

Oakland A's Fan Coalition - Athletics baseball enthusiasts dedicated to watching a winner

[steveshane67]

Originally Posted by mbyron

This is getting a little silly. Of course, if you change the case so that the contact is illegal, I'd agree that it's illegal and rule accordingly.

The only thing you've added to the discussion (beyond a personal remark about me) is your opinion that you could knock a runner off the base while watching the ball. Maybe you could, if the ball were high enough and the runner weren't paying attention. So?

Can you please answer my 2 previous questions along with a new one? Ill repeat them for you so you dont have to back track

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?

Is there a difference between blatant pushing or blatant shouldering or subtle forearm shove?

does it matter at all if the runner is paying attention [to the SS] or not?

Thanks

[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."

[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