Double Play or Not?
 

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?

How about interference or not? :-) R2 out, B/R to 1B

A runner on base can not intefer with a fielder attempting to make a play.

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. If the umpire declares the hindrance intentional, the following penalty shall apply: With less than two out, the umpire shall declare both the runner and batter out. With two out, the umpire shall declare the batter out.

7.08(b) is the correct rule. Doesn't sound like intentional INT, so I've got BR out on the catch, live ball, play on. If the runner is tagged off the base, that's 2 outs.

If the shortstop ran R2 over and knocked him off the base, how does this make him out if he's tagged? I'll give F6 the catch, but I'm putting R2, who was under no obligation to move out of the way, back on 2nd base. No double play. No soup for you!;)

HTBT situation. If there was no intent on anyone then I have two outs. Intent on runner, two outs.

However, if the F6 forceably moved runner off base, then we have something else.

I am basing my answer on this statement:

Sounds liked he was pretty well forced off the base to me. That base belongs to R2, and barring any intentional interference, he doesn't have to move off the base.

Steve did you watch the 1991 World Series?

The Kent Hrbek vs. Ron Gant situation from the 1991 World Series,

the umpire ruled Gant out because he judged that Gant's momentum--not Hrbek's wrestling move--caused Gant to lose contact with the base.

Pete Booth

Yes, I saw it. Gant was moving prior to Hrbek's move. The runner in the OP was stationary. No momentum.

I'm with you on this one, Steve-O

Me too!

From the description in the OP, the contact between F6 and R2 occurred during the fielding attempt. That makes the contact incidental, not intentional by either player. Please cite the rule that makes R2 immune to being put out when he's off the base due to incidental contact.

If F6 had pushed him off after making the catch, we've got a different situation, since at that point he'd be playing on R2 rather than fielding a batted ball.

One more thing: you point out that R2 is not required to move, which is correct. He is, however, allowed to move. And since he's not allowed to interfere with the fielder in this case, that would have been the smart play to avoid the incidental contact that forced him off the base and resulted in the out.

How could he avoid the incidental contact that forced him off the base without stepping off of the base to which he was entitled, thus putting himself at risk for being put out, either by tag or force? If he's not required to move, he's not required to move

He's not then protected from the fielder moving into that space to make a play.

I concur.

Please dont forget that the rules of Baseball are based on fair play. To call the runner out can, in no way, be justified as fair to the offensive team.

And don't forget that fairness is defined by the rules. No rule protects the runner in this situation. (This is NOT the situation where a fielder playing on a runner accidentally or intentionally pushes a runner off a base.)

I understand your point, but disagree. Not that it would happen ;);), but if you called this play as you state, what would stop a coach from seeing this and start teaching his players to attempt to knock players off the bag any time there is a possible chance to do this? I know this is the extreme, but if (what I perceive as fair play) you place him back on the base, no one has gained an advantage. (whether intentional or not - dont forget that the runner was knocked off of the base completely on the initiative of the fielder, no one is questioning this fact here))

I don't find such a tactic at all plausible. First, I'm kinda impressed that the F6 in the OP could bump a runner off a base and still make a catch. Coaching him to TRY to bump into R2 standing on the base is going to result in dropped pop-ups, not INT calls.

Second, unless F6 is as big as a sumo wrestler, it just ain't that hard for a runner to stay on a base while a fielder is fielding a batted ball, provided that he's watching the fielder and not the ball. If he's not watching the fielder, too bad for him.

Third, I make my calls based on the rules, not what coaches might do if I enforce the rules correctly.

You stand on 2nd base. I will come from the shortstop position, not looking at you but watching the high pop fly that is scheduled to come down about 5 feet to the first base side of 2nd. I guarantee that I can knock you into next week and still catch the ball, come back and tag you while you are still laying where I left you, wondering WTF just happened. You cannot call the runner out for this. If a runner is forced off the base, and had no momentum, he can't get tagged out. What would stop a player from shoving a runner off the base and then tagging him? It would be anarchy, I tell ya.

Sometimes you have to use common sense in the absence of a written rule.

I absolutely agree with this point. Alas for your ruling, there is a written rule. See 7.08(c).

If I'm on 2B watching you, and you're watching a fly ball, I absolutely guarantee I could keep a toe or finger on the base and you couldn't touch me. :p

Again, this is NOT the case where a fielder playing on a runner deliberately or accidentally pushes the runner off the base. The ruling on that play does not apply here, since in that play the fielder is not protected.

So it is OK to push a runner off of the base if no play is being made on him, but not OK if a play is being made on him?

I just dont buy this and nothing in the rule book will support it...

I think in this case, both fielder and runner were watching the pop up. R2 more than likely didn't see it coming. Bam.

No, for my ruling, 7.08(c) does not apply:

(c) He is tagged, when the ball is alive, while off his base. EXCEPTION: A batter-runner cannot be tagged out after overrunning or oversliding first base if he returns immediately to the base;

APPROVED RULING: (1) If the impact of a runner breaks a base loose from its position, no play can be made on that runner at that base if he had reached the base safely.

APPROVED RULING: (2) If a base is dislodged from its position during a play, any following runner on the same play shall be considered as touching or occupying the base if, in the umpire’s judgment, he touches or occupies the point marked by the dislodged bag.

Where does it mention the situation where the runner is just standing there minding his own business and gets shoved off the base and tagged? That exception is not addressed, which is why common sense is applied in absence of a clear ruling. This is an ommission in the rules, most likely one of the 235 mistakes in the rules that Jimbo preaches about but never makes MLB fix. Color me confused there:confused:. I guess if he had MLB fix all the broken parts of the book, nobody could make money on interpretation manuals.

Sure, this rule says that if the runner is tagged while off the base, he's out. Again, let's just use common sense and figure that that doesn't mean when he is bullied off the base by an over-zealous fielder.

No error, no omission.

There is no rule that protects a runner who is bumped off the base by incidental contact. At lower levels you might do that, but not HS or above.

You are entitled to your opinion, but you will lose a protest (especially at the upper levels). The runner has a right to that base and when he is knocked off of it, he cannot be called out. (our opinion of course,) And you never answered this:
"So it is OK to push a runner off of the base if no play is being made on him, but not OK if a play is being made on him?" Where is your rule reference for this? The interpretation in the Hrbek play states that the runner is out only if his (offensive players) momentum caused him to leave the base. Clearly this did not happen in the OP..

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.

Whatever:rolleyes:

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.)

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.

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

Don't worry about being late to the party, I'm here so lets get it going again :)


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.


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.

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.

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.

A novices opinion....

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.


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?

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.

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

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?

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

Thanks. Still not relevant though: the OP is about F6 fielding a batted ball, not playing on a runner with a "hard slap tag" or "pushing him off base."

I'm not sure why you repeatedly decline to see the difference: in the OP the fielder is protected, in your case, he isn't.

But go ahead and keep saying, "it's just like this other case with a different ruling," and rule on it as you wish. It's your choice to remain invincibly ignorant.

umpjong,

So, you weren't able to find anything probative, despite your research?

JM

You know I have been more than civil, it seems that you are the one who does not want to face reality. You have shown nothing in regards to your application of the rules, which shows why you probably will continue to work lower levels.
And you refuse to accept that none of the written examples and interpretations distinguishes between your absurd notion that there is a difference between a fielder knocking a runner off a base making a play or not. Please read the article in total without blinders on and you might actually learn something. I'm actually tired of your incompetence.

Read the article.

umpjong,

I have.

JM

I have shown a creditable source on the subject. In all of the resources looked at there has been no reference to your contention that a runner can be tagged out by a fielder after being physically pushed off of a base by a fielder. In fact every one has indicated that the runners initiative was the key variable. If you can come up with one resource/interpretation or link that supports your position then I will listen. Thats all I ask.

So, the museum worker offers no assistance in the OP, eh?

I see your reading comprehension is at a high level !!!

Try adding something constructive for once!

Umpjong, we aren't going to change anyone's position on this. Those who want to squeeze every last out they can get, no matter in what manner it is accomplished, are going to continue to do so, no matter what common sense (not to mention fairness or decency) dictates.

Oh, so it's a character issue, too?

Geez. There's more friggin' straw men running through this thread than the hospitality bar at a scarecrow convention.

I concur with mbyron and the brilliant (and sharply dressed) former coach.

Wrong thread, huh Georgia? :D

Yeah. As soon as I realized it, I had to remove it. I had both open and forgot which one I was reading.

Agreed Steve

here is the OP

For those that will call the runner out on this play - GET READY because in all liklihood you will have to EJ the OM.

It will go something like this (after OM requests and is granted TIME)

Mgr: Blue why is my runner out.

Blue: he was tagged while off his base

Mgr: (thinking to himself -DUH) Blue my runner was pushed / shoved off the base.

Blue: No skip that's baseball

Mgr: You mean to tell me that it is ok for a fielder to push / shove runners off a base and then tag them for an out.

Blue: Skip that's the call time to play

The manager will most likely "go off" and say something like that's the worst f$$$$$$g call I ever saw. If that's the case then I will tell all my fielders to simply shove the runner of the base etc, etc. etc.

In other words - It's by by skip

Granted we cannot officiate because we do not want to get a manager mad. heck the mgr will get mad anyway. The point is this:

Did the fileder make a legitimate play on the runner and did the runner come off the base DUE to his OWN momentum not some "outside" factor.

In Summary: I agree with Steve in that umpires will call the way they want to see this play. I believe we all want outs. The question is this a LEGITIMATE out or looking for straws.

Now if it was 95 - 100 degrees and the game was at the 3 hr. mark and this SECOND out call ends the game then by all means it's time to go.

Pete Booth

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

I understand it wont make any difference, but actually we need not look any further than the MLB rule book.

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, or forced to vacate it for another runner legally entitled to that base.

If you understand basic English, you will see that he must be put out prior (that means before) to losing his entitlement to the base. If you knock him off, you are violating/depriving him of his entitlement to the base.

I know you will dispute this (because you have all ready discounted a MLB hall of fame historian/author) but so be it. You still have produced nothing that supports otherwise. (except for, of course, your opinion)

A HOF historian/author how many of us had ever heard of? All I can see is that he writes an online column.

If it's on the internet it must be true.

BTW, the OP doesn't seem fair to me, but not because that article convinced me.

Just to clarify:

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.

Yes, I read the bio. So I neglected to mention he works at the HOF. And the big deal about that is...?

Thank you. Okay, how is everyone going to get around this rule so they can penalize the runner for standing on his base? Please produce an authoritative interpretation on this, so we can start questioning that person's sanity.

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

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.

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."

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...

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

Well, now you're just annoying.

Let me try to spell it out. Yes I have read everything you've posted, as painful as it was. Forget what HOF guy says who isn't the rulebook, forget "fairness", forget everything.

SDS has aptly pointed out that the runner is entitled to the base.

JM/mbyron and myself have pointed out that the fielder is entitled to field the ball.

OP says "Shortstop running to make the catch runs into the runner knocking him off the base" No push, doesn't seem to be anything intentional, although I'd like to see the play unfold to make sure. But lets say its just a running over, both players with heads up looking at the ball.

By ruling OBS and protecting him back, you are ignoring a rule (don't have the book in front of me to give you the number, but its been quoted earlier in this thread.) A fielder has the right to field the ball off the bat.

By ruling INT, you are ignoring the fact that the runner is entitled to that base, as SDS has quoted.

So, no OBS + no INT = ???

(hint: play on)

From this point, all we have is a runner that is being tagged off the bag. And its not anyone looking for outs, its a good interp. I don't care who I have to eject, its a good interp. Its the best one we got.

Complex at first, but simple when you think about it.

Huh? Both mbyron and umpjm are not only using English properly, they, unlike you, demonstrate knowledge of the intent an propere application of the rules. Neither of them are attempting to justify a position by (intentional?) misapplication of a rule.

Thank you.
I have been gnawing my keyboard to keep myself from posting a [no doubt less temperate] similar comment.

Put me in the "play the bounce" group.

7.11

Obstruction requires that the fielder not be in the act of fielding the ball. So how does mbyron justify placing the runner back on the base if the fielder intentionally pushes him off while moving to a fly ball? Unsportsmanlike conduct/malicious contact? Or is the act of fielding interrupted for the moment when F6 is pushing R2 off second? Or is it just common sense and fair play? Better theories welcomed.

I'd go with the fielding-interrupted theory, although USC might also be present. As the mbyon camp has argued in this thread, common sense and fair play, attractive as they may be, have no rule support.

Umpjong's "entitlement" argument is weak, but not completely specious. But his interpretation of entitlement to mean that R2 cannot be forcibly moved off his base, even if unintentional, seems designed to prop up his common sense and fair play theory with any rule that arguably supports his position. (BTW, his strident tone and use of the adverb "clearly" undermine his persuasiveness.) Entitlement here means in preference to some other runner.

The Gant/Hbrek play is different because by the time Hbrek might be forcing Gant off the base, he is no longer fielding the ball, having caught it a quarter-second before, and thus is subject to an obstruction call.

Rule 7.11, that an offensive team member must give a fielder space to make a play, seems generally to apply to players other than runners and batters. They have more specific rules that apply to them, such as runners on base do not interfere with a fielder if unintentional (7.08(b) comment, paragraph 2). But nice find!

So play the bounce, says I. But I'll be looking closely for the fielder realizing that a runner on base is in his path and not making a reasonable attempt to avoid contact. If contact is truly inadvertent, play on, and runner better do his job of re-establishing contact with his base before the fielder catches the ball and tags him with it. That's baseball (7.08(c)).

This is a fascinating discussion.

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?

Now there's a nice find.;)

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

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.

I just love the way some would just brush aside this mans credentials.
BRUCE MARKUSEN was the Manager of Programs at the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum in Cooperstown, New York from 1994 to 2004. He is the author of Baseball's Last Dynasty: Charlie Finley's Oakland A's (which won the prestigious Seymour Award from the Society for American Baseball Research), Roberto Clemente, and The Orlando Cepeda Story. For the Hall of Fame, he has written numerous articles for publication, edited the Hall of Fame's Yearbook and quarterly newsletter, narrated Hall of Fame video productions, and interviewed most of the current living Hall inductees. Markusen is the regularly featured co-host (along with ESPN's Billy Sample) of the "Hall of Fame Hour" on MLB Radio.

I think he has a bit more credibility than any of us when it comes to MLB concerns. If you can produce evidence to support your claims of him being the hack you propose, bring it on. I think you will find (as I did) that he is very well respected in MLB circles. (he has been and is still hired by MLB so take your best shot) You obviously dont want to give him his due respect because he doesnt portray your opinions.......

Bottom line is that there are obviously two camps here that are set in their ways. I am very comfortable with the application/interpretations of the OBR and the only credible source (written) that has been presented. (Please present someone that contradicts him if you can)

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


Quote:
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td class="alt2" style="border: 1px inset ;"> Originally Posted by mmtech http://forum.officiating.com/images/...s/viewpost.gif
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?
</td> </tr> </tbody></table>

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.

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.

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.

What in there makes him a rules expert?

Hint: Nothing

Those credentials make him just as well qualified to pitch in the world series as they do to rule on this question.

Thank you!

Or, as UmpJM said about 30 posts ago, "So, you weren't able to find anything probative, despite your research?"

The troll who posed the original situation did not provide us with much, such as the level of baseball for one thing. This could have been 8 year-olds or college ball. Hey, a little background would have been helpful.

Just another tid bit, this time from the MLB web site. link below.

"When a situation is not covered, Rule 9.01(c) comes into play. That rule gives the umpire authority to rule on any point not specifically covered in the Rules. In such instances the umpire is instructed to use "common sense and fair play."

I know that this will not change your minds, but thats OK.

Umpires: Feature | MLB.com: Official info


Also, just as I thought you cannot come up with anything to discredit Mr. Markenson so you resort to continual bashing. I'm sure he's concerned that you dont acknowledge his status.

His status as what? A writer? Narrator? Curator?

Even Markenson doesn't claim experience or expertise as a rules expert. You're the the only one doing that.

I tried appealing to common sense and fair play in earlier posts. It's no use. Everybody wants an easy out on this play. One out closer to the parking lot I suppose.:rolleyes:

Steve,

I could be wrong, but mmtech doesn't strike me as a troll. If he were, he likely would have been back "pouring gasoline".

You are correct that there are many aspects of the play which he did NOT describe that would be essential to ruling on the play.

I have no idea if this was a play he saw, had related to him, or created as a "hypothetical".

To me, that's not important. The "interesting question" that the OP raises is, "Since the runner is not obligated to leave his base, and the fielder is not obligated to avoid the runner, how do you properly rule this sitch if you judge no intent by either party?"

I also agree with your kind of "real world" point about, "how can a fielder knock a runner off his base, make a catch, and come back and tag the runner without skippin' a beat" ? (if I may paraphrase). It would certainly be "unusual".

But, let's say it did happen, no intent, either party. Whatever you call, you're likely to be having a "conversation" with somebody. In my suggested ruling, I feel like I've got a "rules basis" for ruling it a train wreck. All I'm hearing with the "protect the runner" ruling is, "common sense and fair play".

They seem to believe that the "special exception" for the runner, that he need not avoid the fielder in this "special case" (i.e., in contact with his base) also imposes an obligation on a "protected fielder" to avoid the runner in this special case. It does not.

I wouldn't be surprised if I never saw this happen in a game. Hadn't considered the question before mmtech's post. At least those of who have participated in this thread know what the relevant rules are (and perhaps some that are "not so much"). I thought it was a good discussion.

JM

Credible to you.

Nobody is saying he can't write, but not everyone who works for MLB is a rules expert.

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..... :D

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.

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

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?

No.



It's two outs.

:p

While he's looking up "straw man" you'll probably have time to start a new summer read. Good job.

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.;)

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.

LOL, good one :D

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.

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.

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