LL Rules - batted ball contacts runner

[MD Longhorn]

Posting here for clarification - Umpire who made the call on this disagrees with me. Little League rules.

R1 on first, bouncing ball goes untouched over the pitcher (who would have had a play if he'd timed his jump better), bounces again and hits R1 in front of the second baseman, who was in position to field the ball. Ruling?

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Posting here for clarification - Umpire who made the call on this disagrees with me. Little League rules.

R1 on first, bouncing ball goes untouched over the pitcher (who would have had a play if he'd timed his jump better), bounces again and hits R1 in front of the second baseman, who was in position to field the ball. Ruling?

Runner is out.

Ball is dead.

BR to 1B

7.08-- Any runner is out when -

(f) Touched by a fair ball in fair territory before the ball has touched or passed an infielder. The ball is dead and no runner may score, no runners advance, except runners forced to advance;
EXCEPTION: If a runner is touching a base when touched by an Infield Fly, that runner is not out, although the batter is out.
NOTE 1: If a runner is touched by an Infield Fly when not touching a base, both the runner and batter are out.
NOTE 2: If two runners are touched by the same fair ball, only the first one is out because the ball is instantly dead.

[bob jenkins]

I agree with Rich.

[MD Longhorn]

So do I. However, when presented with this rule, the umpire pointed out that the ball HAD passed an infielder - the pitcher.

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

So do I. However, when presented with this rule, the umpire pointed out that the ball HAD passed an infielder - the pitcher.

1) "Passed" means within reach. He didn't reach it.

2) It doesn't matter anyhow because the runner was not immediately behind the "infielder".

3) Which really doesn't matter because the pitcher doesn't count as an infielder for this rule - unless he deflects the ball.

But your guy isn't going to believe this anyhow.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

1) "Passed" means within reach. He didn't reach it.

2) It doesn't matter anyhow because the runner was not immediately behind the "infielder".

3) Which really doesn't matter because the pitcher doesn't count as an infielder for this rule - unless he deflects the ball.

But your guy isn't going to believe this anyhow.

I don't want you to get the impression this umpire is an idiot. He's not. This situation bothered him enough to go digging in the book, and when he, independently, found rules to back up what he thought was right, he asked me about it.

I told him (3) - but could not back it up using the LL book (at least not in the 10 minutes I had with him). I mentioned (2) as well with similar results. I'm not sure I agree with you on (1). He DIDN'T reach it, but not because it was not within reach - just bad timing.

I confess that my knowledge of all the other rulesets is far better than my knowledge of LL rules (I only work them 1 week a year - my knowledge of their rules is mostly from this forum, tbh). In every other ruleset I could point you to the exact rule that leads you to (2) or (3). Just wondering how to show that to him in the LL book.

[Rita C]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

I don't want you to get the impression this umpire is an idiot. He's not. This situation bothered him enough to go digging in the book, and when he, independently, found rules to back up what he thought was right, he asked me about it.

I told him (3) - but could not back it up using the LL book (at least not in the 10 minutes I had with him). I mentioned (2) as well with similar results. I'm not sure I agree with you on (1). He DIDN'T reach it, but not because it was not within reach - just bad timing.

I confess that my knowledge of all the other rulesets is far better than my knowledge of LL rules (I only work them 1 week a year - my knowledge of their rules is mostly from this forum, tbh). In every other ruleset I could point you to the exact rule that leads you to (2) or (3). Just wondering how to show that to him in the LL book.

He needs Rule 5.09 where it brings up the pitcher exception.

Rita

[legend]

It sounds like the Issue is with the interpretation of the word "passed" Imo the word would imply that it was/is a ball that a fielder had a play on but "booted" it. In the O.P. it sounds like there was no play available weather its poor timing or not, no play is no play. I guess (w/o seeing the play) that the p.u. could use his/her judgement to say that the pitcher should have made a play and that would justify voiding the b.r. being called out.

[Forest Ump]

It's really a matter of common sense. Why would you have that rule since theoretically every ball would pass the pitcher. Nobody would ever be out by his thinking.

[gotblue?]

Originally Posted by legend

It sounds like the Issue is with the interpretation of the word "passed" Imo the word would imply that it was/is a ball that a fielder had a play on but "booted" it. In the O.P. it sounds like there was no play available weather its poor timing or not, no play is no play. I guess (w/o seeing the play) that the p.u. could use his/her judgement to say that the pitcher should have made a play and that would justify voiding the b.r. being called out.

Except that the rule says that the runner is not out only if the ball passes an infielder with the runner immediately behind the fielder and no other infielder can make a play on the ball. For example, a ball hit between the 3B and SS, and the ball passes 3B and then hits the runner (R2 in this case). If the SS still can make a play on the ball, then the ball passing 3B and hitting the runner, the runner would still be out if it is judged that the SS still had a play on the ball.

Without having seen your play, it sounds like 2B still had a play on the ball, so the exemption for the runner would not apply, even if the pitcher is considered to be an infielder. R1 is out. No?

[CT1]

Why is this so hard to understand? The pitcher is not considered an infielder for the purposes of this rule. No judgment necessary.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by CT1

Why is this so hard to understand? The pitcher is not considered an infielder for the purposes of this rule. No judgment necessary.

Mybe a rules reference / cite would help.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by CT1

Why is this so hard to understand? The pitcher is not considered an infielder for the purposes of this rule. No judgment necessary.

I agree... and I can prove it in most rulesets. I'm having trouble proving it with just the LL book.

[CT1]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

I agree... and I can prove it in most rulesets. I'm having trouble proving it with just the LL book.

I haven't worked LL in a thousand years, so I don't have a book. When I did that level, they used modified OBR. If there was no modification, the OBR rule stood.

I can't imagine that LL rules would differ in this area, but I'm willing to be proved wrong.

[umpjim]

Rita posted the cite: 5.09(f) both in OBR and LLGB. Using the "did not pass rationalization" would not allow you to get an out in OBR on a base hit grounder between two infielders that passed them and hit a runner. No string theory in OBR. FED is different.