The Official Forum

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Baseball (https://forum.officiating.com/baseball/)
-   -   Question on IFF Exception (https://forum.officiating.com/baseball/95235-question-iff-exception.html)

Manny A Sun Jun 09, 2013 06:37am
Question on IFF Exception
 
When an IFF hits a runner who is on base, the rule has an exception that says the runner is not out. The question is, Is the ball dead at that point? Or does play remain live and runners may advance? OBR 7.08(f) does not say anything.

Dave Reed Sun Jun 09, 2013 09:42am
7.08f says the ball is dead. The exception aspect refers to the runner not being out. J/R explicitly says the ball is dead in this situation.

Rich Ives Sun Jun 09, 2013 10:00am
It says right in 5.09 and 7.08 that the ball is dead. The only exception listed is that the runner is not out if hit by a declared IFF while in contact with the base. The status of the ball is not modified.

bob jenkins Sun Jun 09, 2013 08:51pm
Agreed. Of all the 234 "problems" in OBR, this is in the bottom 34.

MD Longhorn Mon Jun 10, 2013 09:05am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manny A (Post 896945)
OBR 7.08(f) does not say anything.
Err... yes it does.

Manny A Mon Jun 10, 2013 03:03pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MD Longhorn (Post 897007)
Err... yes it does.
True for the main part of the rule when it deals with a runner getting hit, but not in the Exception on the IFF, so it leaves it to interpretation.

Similarly, 7.09(k) talks of a runner getting hit by a batted ball. It mentions that the runner is not out if that happens after the ball gets by a fielder or is deflected by a fielder. But it makes no mention that the ball is dead or not.

So if it is not dead when a runner gets hit by a deflected batted ball, one would believe the same is true on the IFF while on the base. After all, in both cases the runner is not called out, so there is no interference.

I didn't have access to an authoritative interpretation to check.

MD Longhorn Mon Jun 10, 2013 03:08pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manny A (Post 897048)
True for the main part of the rule when it deals with a runner getting hit, but not in the Exception on the IFF, so it leaves it to interpretation.

Similarly, 7.09(k) talks of a runner getting hit by a batted ball. It mentions that the runner is not out if that happens after the ball gets by a fielder or is deflected by a fielder. But it makes no mention that the ball is dead or not.

So if it is not dead when a runner gets hit by a deflected batted ball, one would believe the same is true on the IFF while on the base. After all, in both cases the runner is not called out, so there is no interference.

I didn't have access to an authoritative interpretation to check.
I'm not getting what you're saying. It very clearly says the ball is dead. The exception applies to the out - and that seems rather clear too.

dash_riprock Mon Jun 10, 2013 03:41pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manny A (Post 897048)
True for the main part of the rule when it deals with a runner getting hit, but not in the Exception on the IFF, so it leaves it to interpretation.

Similarly, 7.09(k) talks of a runner getting hit by a batted ball. It mentions that the runner is not out if that happens after the ball gets by a fielder or is deflected by a fielder. But it makes no mention that the ball is dead or not.

So if it is not dead when a runner gets hit by a deflected batted ball, one would believe the same is true on the IFF while on the base. After all, in both cases the runner is not called out, so there is no interference.

I didn't have access to an authoritative interpretation to check.
Even if you think 7.09(k) is ambiguous, 5.09(f) is not.

MD Longhorn Mon Jun 10, 2013 04:09pm
I'm still trying to figure out how "the ball is dead" is either ambiguous or requires interpretation.

Manny A Wed Jun 12, 2013 07:13am
Well, JMO, but if it was so definitive, J/R wouldn't be compelled to make that interpretation, and only cite 7.08(f) and not 5.09(f).

Dave Reed Wed Jun 12, 2013 05:34pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manny A (Post 897217)
Well, JMO, but if it was so definitive, J/R wouldn't be compelled to make that interpretation, and only cite 7.08(f) and not 5.09(f).
J/R is, and was intended to be, an re-organization of the rules of baseball. It started as the rules manual for an umpire school. It is not a collection of interpretations like e.g. the MLBUM or BRD.

So J/R are "compelled" to make the interpretation because the book intends to cover all the rules.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:02am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1