Inattentive Runner - Collision
 

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.

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.

Welcome to the boards, Sven.

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

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.

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.

And this is why I asked what ruleset. :D

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

[QUOTE]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

[QUOTE=PeteBooth;682512]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).

Every time someone mentions contact Pete starts a MC lecture.

[QUOTE]How can the runner be "oblivious of the play RIGHT IN FRONT OF HIM" UNLESS we are talking about TEE ball or "rug-rat" players which is a "horse of a different color"?

As an official I see F5 and then I see R2 "plowing into him" How do I know or interpret this action as "being oblivious"? Generally speaking when a runner "plows into" a fielder the purpose is to dislodge the ball from said player which is a form of MC.

Pete Booth

[QUOTE=PeteBooth;682523]Not under all rule codes.

[QUOTE=PeteBooth;682523]You obviously haven't spent nearly enough time in 12U rec ball. Oblivion is a standard state of mind at that level. :D

To go on, you assume way too much in terms of intent. There don't seem to be any accidents in your world, and it always sems to be the runner's fault.

How about this grown-up play:

Runner heading home. He looks back over his shoulder to see if the ball is coming (not supposed to but they do anyhow). Catcher steps into the runner's path. Runner runs into him full tilt.

Who, if anyone, is at fault? Is it MC or just a train wreck?

Pete, I don't know how you can assume intent at all when it's pretty much specifically excluded by the original poster...

I am STRICTLY going by the poster's use of "plows into" and Generally speaking when someone uses the phrase "plows into" they are referring to a Pete Rose / Ray Fosse type of incident, otherwise use different terminology.

If you "plow me over" it means just that. You see me with the ball and now want to dislodge it from me. As mentioned at least in FED that is a form of MC.

Pete Booth

That's what OP said. "oblivious of the play in front of him", to me, sounds like a deep lack of awareness. I'm not sure we should take the "plows into him" to mean that the poster did not mean what he said in the rest of the sentence. Heck ... I "plowed into" my 7-year old daughter just this morning when I didn't see her coming and we walked into each other.

I think it's pretty clear from "oblivious" that there was no intent. (I would note to our new poster that it's imperative to check into one's post's responses so that questions like this can be cleared up!) I think it's rather probable that he merely used the phrase "plowed into" to mean that the collision was messy.

Thanks for the responses guys.

These are 7/8 graders on 80 foot bases with a 53 foot mound. I believe we play under OBR but we do force the obligation for non-collision on the runner.

The ball was not knocked loose. When I say oblivious I mean oblivious. This kid would have been doubled off by 80 feet if the ball were hit in the air. I do not think there was any malicious intent.

While one might say we are splitting hairs here more fine than the level of play deserves I'm the kind of coach who likes to know we got it right by the rules. I am a detail-oriented guy who likes baseball.

As you guys know, kids often bring about the application of some rather obscure rules. Each of these is a teachable moment. Hopefully they learn to appreciate and enjoy the subtlety and complexity of the game as I do.

When the oblivious kid was being attended to I gathered my fielders around to explain what had just happened, why the kid was out, and how in our league it is the runner's obligation to know what the heck is going on and avoid the collision. I told them that I wasn't sure about calling the DP but I didn't want to take it up with the crew right then.

Later on we had the bases loaded with one out when the opposing team wanted to change pitchers. I called the guys on base together and we went over the infield fly rule. They said they knew it but I could tell by the look in their eyes that they probably would know what to do if IFF was called. Another teachable moment.

And then I told them that the hands are part of the bat.

Just kidding! :d

Did your wife send you to time-out?

HEY, I'm still waiting for my consolation prize. is it a Bat with Hands attached to it? I've always wanted one.......

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.

No. Assumptions play no role in umpiring this play.

The rest of your post is correct.

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

This is true in all codes when the fielder is in the act of fielding the ball. Most youth ball, even those playing OBR, include slide or avoid language.

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

You're mixing up fielding and tag plays I think.

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.