Inattentive Runner - Collision

[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.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

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

No they weren't. They might have reached the correct conclusion (and I'm not sure of that, either), but they used incorrect reasoning.

According to Sven, they reasoned that "it can't be assumed that the double play would have been completed and only the obtuse runner is called out." That seems to imply that the standard for calling a double play is whether a DP would have been completed without the INT. That's not correct in any code.

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by mbyron

No they weren't. They might have reached the correct conclusion (and I'm not sure of that, either), but they used incorrect reasoning.

According to Sven, they reasoned that "it can't be assumed that the double play would have been completed and only the obtuse runner is called out." That seems to imply that the standard for calling a double play is whether a DP would have been completed without the INT. That's not correct in any code.

Semantics?

"It cannot be assumed . . " is true in OBR. Assumption has nothing to do with it. You must judge willful & deliberate intent to call a DP. Judging the oblivious runner as having intent would be a MAJOR stretch.

In FED you CAN assume a DP eould have happened and call it.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

Semantics?

"It cannot be assumed . . " is true in OBR. Assumption has nothing to do with it. You must judge willful & deliberate intent to call a DP. Judging the oblivious runner as having intent would be a MAJOR stretch.

In FED you CAN assume a DP eould have happened and call it.

No. Assumptions play no role in umpiring this play.

The rest of your post is correct.

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by mbyron

No. Assumptions play no role in umpiring this play.

The rest of your post is correct.

Did you read what I wrote? I wrote: "Assumption has nothing to do with it."

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

Did you read what I wrote? I wrote: "Assumption has nothing to do with it."

I read it. You contradicted yourself, writing first that the umpires were correct (to assume) and then stating that assumption has nothing to do with it.

I chose to focus on fixing the half that struck me as incorrect, and also pointed out that we mainly agree.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by mbyron

According to Sven, they reasoned that "it can't be assumed that the double play would have been completed

Agreed. The quote is something that scorers use, not umpires.