Double Play or Not?

[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.

[mbyron]

OK. Just wanted to be the 100th post in this thread.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by mbyron

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.

No, I was arguing that we don't know from the OP exactly what F6 did. Was it intentional? It sounded that way to me, so I was basing it on an intentional act. Go back and read some of my posts. I said that I didn't believe that F6 could accidentally knock the runner off the base, make the catch, then tag the runner. I said if the contact was strong enough to knock the runner off the base and incapacitate him so much that he couldn't get back on his base, then it would have had to have been one helluva collision, which most likely would have resulted in both players falling to the ground in a pile. So, by deduction, I reasoned that F6 threw R2 a shoulder on purpose, made the catch, then got his DP by cheating. That is what I have argued from the beginning. I do not buy into it being "incidental contact" in this case, because it just doesn't add up when you look at all the facts like Perry Mason would. That's how I learned to analyze things as a small boy, and have carried on that tradition. Your witness, Mr. Burger.

[NFump]

OBS/INT or none?

This is what we've been arguing all along. The first part of YOUR post(linked above) is what the original question was about and what we've been saying the whole time.
That is how we got the double play. Accidental live ball, play on runner out if tagged while off base. Intent on the part of either player kill it and rule accordingly.