R1 Interference
 

This play occurred early in Larry Dierker's managerial career in a game at LA. No outs, R1 breaks to 2B on hit and run. Bagwell comes off 1B about even with the bag. Biggio covers 2B and is about even with the bag. The batter hit a sharp grounder that hit R1 in the foot as he was running to second, about midway there. It seemed to be a clear case of RI, but Joe West ruled it was not. I think the explanation was the ball had passed both Bagwell and Biggio and no infielder had a chance to field it. I remember HS rules had/have? something about lines or vectors or somesuch but I do not think that goes for OBR. Anyway, this comes about fairly often and I think West kicked it - do y'all agree? I am sure J/R comments on this, what does it say? Could Dierker have lodged a valid protest as this was not judgment but a misinterpretation of the rules? Thanks!

Need to see the video.

Rich, I doubt there is one, the play was from 1997. However, I bumped up an old 2006 thread that had discussed a play somewhat similar to my OP. One post talked about "string theory" which might have been in vogue in 1997. The consensus was that the runner is usually out when hit by a batted ball except [step and a reach stuff, etc, etc]. The other thread said J/R changed the interpretation to call the runner out. That seems to mean that the only thing that absolved the runner is if the ball touches or goes through or immediately by a fielder. If the runner is in the middle of the bases without a fielder within 30 feet of him and he gets hit with a batted ball, he's out.

The string theory might have been in vogue then but the current MLBUM says it's not valid for OBR. The consensus is valid by official interpretation.

FED does use the string theory. I think NCAA does too.

How in the world do umpires keep all the rule sets apart when they officiate at different levels? Imagine how hard it is for casual fans. It is not uncommon for a runner to be hit by a batted ball. It would seem to be in the best interest of baseball in general to have a unified rule/interpretation - one that puts the runner in jeopardy except in very limited exceptions as in current OBR manuals. This is how "myths" originate to a large degree.

Five years of baseball and I've seen it once.

I've always wondered, and this is a good place to ask, how different are the playing rules between levels (Youth, Fed, NCAA, Professional) for other sports? When I glance at other rule quizzes in Referee, it always says something to the effect of "Give answer for [several] rule codes."

Yawetag, the younger and less skilled the age group, the more bizarre and unusual the "OP's". In effect, a player's first exposure to such esoteric rulings on such things as botched IFFs, interference, obstruction, runner hit by batted ball, etc comes at the lower levels. Then things vary in different rule sets and umpire manuals as they get older. Consistency is a good thing.

In Ice Hockey there many differences. Of course the gap has closed up significantly over the years, there is still a lot of differences in safety, penalties, offsides , icing, etc. There are basically USAHockey rules that cover both youth up to 18yrs and Juniors (18 & over), NFHS (High School), NCAA, NHL (with variations for AHL and many other Minor organizations. Like baseball, it is not uncommon for officials to mix up the rules sets in a game. So you do hear the occasional "don't you know the rules?" comment also. Unlike Baseball though there is a lot less stoppages of play and lull time. The unexpected happens more times that expected.

And in basketball, football and, I suspect, tiddly winks.

There are also those cases where two codes word the rule similarly but interpret it differently. I'm thinking of R2 stopping in front of F6 on a ground ball and then proceeding just before the ball reaches him. INT in Fed, nothing in OBR. However, you wouldn't know from reading the rule as written.

We also had that play a few years ago where A-Rod yelled at F5, causing him to misplay the popup. Again INT in Fed and nothing in OBR (though apparently Bruce Froemming claimed he'd call INT on such a play). And again you can't tell from the written rule.

I stopped doing Fed several years ago, but I did find the rules differences difficult.

When I get to the point of officiating tiddly winks Bob, I will for sure let you know.

Yeah, depending on level, it is somewhere between uncommon and rare. When it happens on the MLB level it seems to invariably bring about a discussion in the booth that the part of the rule that gives the batter credit for a hit should be changed...."a pitcher is going to lose a no-hitter one day because of that and then won't they be sorry it was written that way".

Doesn't it make sense that the "framers intent" was to have 99% of the cases result in the runner called out even if in many cases the batter would have had a hit? .... to the degree that the batter gets a "book rule" single?**Otherwise it would have made more sense to call it a FC with the put-out going to the nearest fielder.

** I think it was Nemec's book that explained how a cagey player for the Reds(?) maybe as recently as the mid-50's would simply field a grounder at R2 to prevent a 6-4-3 DP. So they had to change that part to rule the B/R out if it was intentional on the part of the runner.