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.

[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.

[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.

[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.