Ball Hits the ondeck batter, Read on!!

[easygoer]

Situation

Bases loaded 2 outs.
Popup to 2nd base, dropped
Runner from 3rd scores
On deck batter goes to the plate to pickup the bat and chest bump the runner who just scored
1st base throws the ball home to attempt to get the runner who was advancing from 2nd
The ball hits the on deck batter(who is in the area of the plate) and goes up the 3rd base line
All runners score and the batter ends up on 3rd.

The ruling on the field, no interference or obstruction, all runs score play ball.

Please tell me that this was incorrect.


Popcorn

[Tim C]

"Please tell me that this was incorrect."

Why would you want me to lie to you?

T

[easygoer]

Ok, so could you point me in the right direction for the rule that allows the on deck batter to move into the field of play and be struck by a live ball with no penalty? Because if that is the rule it would only make sense to send them in front of the plate on any occasion when there may be a play at home. Had it hit the runner who scored I would think that 7.09 (d) or (e) would apply. The on deck guy being there is what I can't find a rule that applies to that specific situation.

Popcorn

[UmpJM]

popcorn,

He's an "offensive teammate". Unless his action is deemed to be intentionally interfering by the umpire, this is nothing but "E3".

There is a rare confluence of factors that might actually convince the umpire that interference should be called - but it doesn't sound like that's what happened.

JM

[easygoer]

Jm,

Thanks for the reply. My only problem is that by the on deck player leaving the on deck area and moving in front of the plate into the field of play and chest bumping his team mate, how would that not be considered "hindering or impededing" the fielder. The fact that the fielder was unable to make a play on the ball due to the on deck batter and the just scored runner celebrating in front of the plate would by the very definition of "hindering and impeding"

Thanks,

Popcorn

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by easygoer

Jm,

Thanks for the reply. My only problem is that by the on deck player leaving the on deck area and moving in front of the plate into the field of play and chest bumping his team mate, how would that not be considered "hindering or impededing" the fielder. The fact that the fielder was unable to make a play on the ball due to the on deck batter and the just scored runner celebrating in front of the plate would by the very definition of "hindering and impeding"

Thanks,

Popcorn

So now the runner and OD batter are in front of the plate - not just in the area - and you want us to believe that a runner who just scored is somehow in front of the plate?

What's your stake in this?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by easygoer

Jm,

Thanks for the reply. My only problem is that by the on deck player leaving the on deck area and moving in front of the plate into the field of play and chest bumping his team mate, how would that not be considered "hindering or impededing" the fielder. The fact that the fielder was unable to make a play on the ball due to the on deck batter and the just scored runner celebrating in front of the plate would by the very definition of "hindering and impeding"

Thanks,

Popcorn

There's a difference between "hindering a fielder" and "hindering the ball"

[easygoer]

Yes, both are actually in front of the plate, and the on deck batter is on the left hand batters box side of the plate in front. He started the play in the on deck circle on the 3rd base side. And yes he and the player who had just scored were chest bumping in front of the plate. I can only assume they thought the game was over as they had just scored the go ahead run. When the no call was questioned the umpire stated there was no interference because "he had just scored". When I pointed out that the person who just scored was not who was hit, but the person who was hit and rolling around on the ground, again in front of the plate was the on deck batter, all the way over from the 3rd base side. He had no answer at that point other than to say no interfernce or obstruction.
And yes I was very much involved, I was coaching the defensive team. Wish they caught better, this never would have happened! I am having a difficult time understanding how two players celebrating in the field of play and being struck by a live ball thrown to the plate to try preventing one of their team mates from scoring is not a violation of any baseball rule.
I guess I should have been more specific in my original post as to the precise circumstances, but it seemed pretty cut and dried to me.

But I admit I had a dog in the fight.

Thanks again,

Popcorn

[johnnyg08]

I appreciate the fact that you appeared to have taken some time to at least look up a rule. If I may suggest, you might want to contact your state rules clinician and ask for an official interpretation of that rule. That being said, there are some very qualified people on here that know at least as much as your state clinician.

Without seeing the play, we're left to make certain assumptions based on your version of the story...which may lead to you not hearing what you want to hear. Keep an open mind and absorb what some of these guys are writing.

Good luck

[bossman72]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

There's a difference between "hindering a fielder" and "hindering the ball"

I'm normally right on with Bob, Tim C, JM, and Rich, but this seems like a CLEAR violation of 7.09 (d) or (e)

Seems like in the play mentioned, the players had enough time to get out of the way (in fact, they had enough time to celebrate, so it wasn't a case of the runners/teammates having to disintegrate to avoid interfering). Also, there was a definite (and realistic) attempt to retire a runner when the interference happened. So, I don't see much justification on passing on this...

[UmpJM]

Originally Posted by bossman72

I'm normally right on with Bob, Tim C, JM, and Rich, but this seems like a CLEAR violation of 7.09 (d) or (e)

Seems like in the play mentioned, the players had enough time to get out of the way (in fact, they had enough time to celebrate, so it wasn't a case of the runners/teammates having to disintegrate to avoid interfering). Also, there was a definite (and realistic) attempt to retire a runner when the interference happened. So, I don't see much justification on passing on this...

bossman,

Why thank you for the compliment.

I've seen quite a few "post scoring" celebrations by an offensive teammate. (Usually, either the ODB who has come over to " base coach" the runner trying to score, or a "just scored" runner) and I have neve seen one interfere with a play at the plate.

Almost invariably, the "celebration" occurs away from the plate on the 3BLX. If the throw hits that cluster, it's a bad throw.

If an offensive teammate enters the natural throwing lane on a play at the plate, I would not hesitate to call the runner out for interference. A "just scored" runner, of course, would be allowed some latitude in this regard.

JM

[yawetag]

I may be off-kilter, so if I am, tell me why:

Fed 3-2-3: ...nor shall the base coach or members of the team at bat fail to vacate any area needed by a fielder in his attempt to put out a batter or runner.
PENALTY: The ball is dead immediately and the runner is out.

5-1-1e: Ball becomes dead immediately when: (e) there is interference by ... any person (3-2-3)

OP stated the ball was thrown home in an attempt to put out R2. 3-2-3 is in effect. I added 5-1-1e for those nay-sayers that would say "But that's in the section on actions by coaches."

[dash_riprock]

I have INT on this play for one reason - the ODH was in front of the plate when he was hit by the ball - right where you would expect a true throw from F3. There is no reason for him to be in fair territory. In fact, I think the chest bumping was just a decoy in an attempt to conceal his true motive - to intentionally interfere with a live thrown ball.

3-2-3 protects a base coach from INT if a thrown ball unintentionally contacts him (thanks FED, for requiring me to determine the intent of a baseball) in foul territory. Therefore, such immunity to INT is lost if the contact is intentional or occurs over fair ground. I think the same standard should apply to the ODH (as does the rest of 3-2-3).

An interesting side note: 3-2-3 begins: "No offensive team personnel, other than the base coach..."

Webster defines "offensive" as, among other things, unpleasant; disgusting; insulting.

Therefore, by FED rule, base coaches are unpleasant, disgusting and insulting.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

I have INT on this play for one reason - the ODH was in front of the plate when he was hit by the ball - right where you would expect a true throw from F3.

As JM correctly points out, this is a judgment call all the way. Naturally, the defensive coach who brought us the case thinks that the ODH was directly in front of the plate and in the throwing lane. The calling umpire did not see it that way.

Before we throw our unnamed colleague under the bus, let's just agree:
1. that JM has posted the correct rule, and
2. that such "celebrations" are common and legal, and
3. that it's more likely that in the OP there was a bad throw than that the offense was secretly conspiring to maneuver their chest-bump into the throwing lane.

If the PU judges that it was a conspiracy, then by all means call the INT.

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Before we throw our unnamed colleague under the bus, let's just agree:

3. that it's more likely that in the OP there was a bad throw than that the offense was secretly conspiring to maneuver their chest-bump into the throwing lane.

To conclude that, you'd have to assume the poster was lying through his teeth.
Plus, the explanation from the ump for not calling INT was "he just scored." Totally irrelevant and wrong.

Let's agree on something else: that the original poster was telling the truth, and that the ODH got hit by the throw in fair territory, in front of the plate, and that the throw was on the money to retire a runner attempting to score.

Now what do you have?