Double Play or Not?

[umpjong]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Rule 9.01(c) does not come into play in this situation, which IS covered by the rules. The rules tell us when player contact is illegal, and if it's not illegal then it's legal.

Rule 9.01(c) is a crutch used by some umpires when they have trouble figuring out how to apply the rules correctly. They simply say: "Oh, this outcome seems fair to me, so let's do that."

That's not the correct application of that rule. It has to be something incredibly bizarre and unusual that is really not mentioned anywhere in the rules. Player contact would not qualify; a pitched ball hitting a bird would.

Golly, you mean you found a rule that specifically states that a fielder may push a runner off a base and then tag him. Gee share it with us...

And MLB uses a crutch every time it adds an approved (A.R.) ruling. Why didnt you tell us earlier that you are the rules expert.

Oh and by the way did you see the last statement by MLB in regards to the pitch hitting the bird play. If not here it is.

"In this game, the umpires called it no pitch, as this was the fairest thing to do." Nope MLB rules are not at all concerned with fairness and is never a guiding force.....

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by umpjong

Golly, you mean you found a rule that specifically states that a fielder may push a runner off a base and then tag him. Gee share it with us...

And MLB uses a crutch every time it adds an approved (A.R.) ruling. Why didnt you tell us earlier that you are the rules expert.

Oh and by the way did you see the last statement by MLB in regards to the pitch hitting the bird play. If not here it is.

"In this game, the umpires called it no pitch, as this was the fairest thing to do." Nope MLB rules are not at all concerned with fairness and is never a guiding force.....

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

[NFump]

I thought the "pushing" thing had been covered already? Oh wait, that was shoving. Okay, there is no shoving or pushing or any hint of something intentional on the part of either the runner or the fielder in the original post.

Again, intent changes the play and the ruling. If fielder intentionally pushes runner off base then rule obstruction and place runner back on bag, if runner intentionally interferes, call interference and runner out. We're not arguing any of that. The question is sans intent on the part of either player is this an out?

[rookieblue]

No.



It's two outs.

[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]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

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

LOL, good one

[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.

[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.

[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.