Double Play or Not?

[NFump]

Now there's a nice find.

[Paul L]

Yeah, much better theory than my fielding-interrupted theory. Thanks.

[SanDiegoSteve]

One last attempt at this for me:

In the OP, if F6 had just accidentally ran into R2 while going for the ball, wouldn't he most likely be startled enough by the surprise collision to misplay the ball? It seems like he could have shoved the runner to the ground on purpose, made the catch, and had the presence of mind to tag the runner he plowed over. If he had "accidentally" run into R2, he most likely would have lost his balance and fell as well, like two fielders colliding in the outfield. But instead, it was only R2 that fell to the ground, leading me to believe that F6 had fully anticipated the contact, and was ready to counterbalance his body.

It's just a theory that I have.

BTW, has anyone else noticed that the person who wrote the OP only posted the one time and never came back with more information, leading to everyone here jumping to various conclusions. The poster could have helped out by supplying a little more detail, so we could develop a clearer picture of exactly what happened on the play.

[NFump]

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


Quote:

Originally Posted by mmtech
Runner at 2nd, 1 out. Pop-up over 2nd base. Runner stays on base. Shortstop running to make the catch runs into the runner knocking him off the base. Shortstop catches the pop-up and tags the runner who is off the base. Double play or not?

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.