Inattentive Runner - Collision

[Sven K]

First post but I have been lurking and learning for a while...

Runners on first and second with one out. Batter hits a three hopper to the third basemen who fields it right in the base line. The runner is on his way to third (oblivious of the play developing in front of him) and as the fielder is rising up to make the tag the runner plows into him. Both fall to the ground in a heap. The question: is the batter out since the fielder was denied his bona fide chance to throw out the runner and complete the double play? It seems to me that this is a judgement thing but I have to admit that I don't know the rule. You see it called occasionally on the typical 6-4-3 double play.

It seemed like bad form to ask the crew about this immediately after since the runner was injured and bleeding and still laying on the ground. When asked later the upires informed me that it can't be assumed that the double play would have been completed and only the obtuse runner is called out. Is this correct? If so it doesn't seem fair.

[johnnyg08]

This one is tricky...using OBR rules you have to judge if the runner used willful and deliberate intent to break up the double play. There's quite a few case plays on this type of play. I guess I'd probably call the double play...but that might be wrong.

[yawetag]

Welcome to the boards, Sven.

What ruleset was the game played under? OBR? Fed? NCAA?

[txump81]

My interpretation of your OP...

Runner just didn't realize where F5 was so I just have the runner out for interference. If it is determined to be intentional, double play.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Sven K

When asked later the umpires informed me that it can't be assumed that the double play would have been completed and only the obtuse runner is called out. Is this correct? If so it doesn't seem fair.

This is not correct.

OBR: If the umpire judges that the runner "willfully and deliberately" interfered in order to break up a double play, he should call the DP. 7.09f

FED: If the umpire judges that the INT prevented a DP (that is, the defense might have made a DP), then the umpire should call the DP. 8-4-2g

The FED rule does not require intent by the runner to break up a DP, only that he did in fact break it up.

[yawetag]

Originally Posted by mbyron

The FED rule does not require intent by the runner to break up a DP, only that he did in fact break it up.

And this is why I asked what ruleset.

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by mbyron

This is not correct.

OBR: If the umpire judges that the runner "willfully and deliberately" interfered in order to break up a double play, he should call the DP. 7.09f

FED: If the umpire judges that the INT prevented a DP (that is, the defense might have made a DP), then the umpire should call the DP. 8-4-2g

The FED rule does not require intent by the runner to break up a DP, only that he did in fact break it up.

If Sven's game was OBR then the umpires WERE correct.

[UmpTTS43]

Once a fielder fields the ball and makes a tag attempt on the runner, collisions are legal unless the rule sets have an avoid contact clause. If it is a tag attempt, the runner cannot be called out for interference unless his actions are "willful and deliberate." Tag attempts are treated differently than when a fielder is making a play on the ball.

[rbmartin]

Originally Posted by Sven K

...fielder is rising up to make the tag the runner plows into him. Both fall to the ground in a heap.

Did the collision occur during an attempted tag or during an attempted throw?
When both players "fell to the ground in a heap" was the ball dislodged?

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by rbmartin

Did the collision occur during an attempted tag or during an attempted throw?
When both players "fell to the ground in a heap" was the ball dislodged?

In OBR interference with a throw has to be intentional.

[johnnyg08]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

In OBR interference with a throw has to be intentional.

That is an important piece for those who do OBR and FED...that is a huge difference in how you call plays.

[UmpJM]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

In OBR interference with a throw has to be intentional.

While that is true, interfering with a fielder who is "in the act of fielding" a fair batted ball, which includes the fielder's attempt to throw out a runner immediately after gaining control of the batted ball, does NOT require intent.

If the fielder was attempting to tag the runner who collided with him, I agree with UmpTT - it's nothing. If the fielder was attempting to throw to another fielder in order to retire a runner, it IS interference on the colliding runner.

JM

[rbmartin]

Originally Posted by Sven K

...fielder is rising up to make the tag the runner plows into him.

If this was in fact during a tag, without Malicious contact, I've got nothing (OBR).
Ball control maintained = runner out
Ball dislodged = runner safe...until another defensive player picks up the ball and tags him.

[PeteBooth]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by Sven K

and as the fielder is rising up to make the tag the runner plows into him.

First things first.

Others are quoting OBR rule references BUT most leagues that are OBR based, ie: Legion, USSSA, Babe Ruth / Ripken/ etc. have an MC or a Collission rule.

You say "runner plows" Generally speaking when a runner "plows" into another IS a form of MC. Yes there can be collissions that are not malicious but as mentioned in general terms when someone "plows into" another is an intent to injure. Obviously we would HTBT to see EXACTLY what transpired but I am going STRICTLY by your wording.

The call is

1. TIME
2. That's MC
3. R2 is out and I am also taking the out at first as well
4. R2 is ejecetd

Pete Booth

[rbmartin]

[QUOTE=PeteBooth;682512]

The call is

1. TIME
2. That's MC
3. R2 is out and I am also taking the out at first as well
4. R2 is ejecetd

The OP said the runner was "oblivious of the play developing in front of him".
How can you have MC? You could have HUYAC (head up your #$@ contact).