LLWS - Washington / Connecticut

[lawump]

Originally Posted by bluehair

Counselor, you know that if something has to be implied (not stated) then there is room for argument...And if I had a nickel for everytime my lawyer used the word "clearly" in a argument before the court...well... LOL

First, now that I'm at home typing and not at work (shhh...don't tell the boss!), I actually have my J/R manual in front of me. In defining terms such as "protected fielder" and "field a batted ball" J/R cites to both 7.08 and 7.09. In fact, it uses both rules at the same place (in the J/R) to come up with one interpretation. In other words, it is implying (by citing to both) that both of these rules cannot be understood in isolation from one another, rather they have been combined by interpretation (by J/R, by PBUC, by MLBUM) to form one comprehensive rule regarding interference by a runner against a fielder with possession of the ball.

I have set forth what those interpretations are in my prior posts in this thread. (Protected fielder with possession of the ball vs. a not protected fielder with possession of the ball)
(

Originally Posted by bluehair

You gave the tag/collision/ball drop example, which I agree is not interference because runner did not interfer with the attempted play. And you say that we see runners "take out" fielders all the time in pro ball and on the turning of a DP, I agree, it is not interference (ref PBUC as you stated). But I can't think of another example where a runner takes out a fielder without an interference call. I wish there was one for my feeble brain to wrap around. But if there is none then one can either limit the interference protection to 7.09(j) or interp 7.08(b) more broadly without the unclearly implied limits.

I have re-read my posts in this thread and I don't see where I gave a specific example. However:

(1) Vina vs bell - YouTube Not interference. (I realize that this is not the same exact play as the OP.)

(2) the limits are not unclearly implied. I have set them out with specificity in prior posts in this thread. I even gave the three stages of "fielding a batted ball" and when they begin and end. They may not be clearly implied in the rule book...I grant you...but they are clearly explicitly set forth in J/R and other interpretations. You can interpret 7.09(j) or 7.08(b) as you would like, but you will be on your own (at least on the professional level).

(3) Just because you (or I) can't think of another example does not mean that my rule interpretation is wrong. Let's be honest, how often does the play that is shown on the video to begin this thread occur? The answer is hardly ever. Almost all collisions involve a tag attempt (i.e. play at the plate) or a turn of a double play. (I think you are too quick to dismiss the take out at second base (where, for example, F6 fields the batted ball and then runs over to touch second base before throwing to first base) as not being relevant to this discussion. With that said, runners don't often run into fielders with the ball other than in the situations you have cited (double play/tag attempt)...because runners are trying to avoid fielders because they don't want to be tagged out and because almost all fielders make a tag attempt on a runner who is making contact with them (unlike in the OP)!

Finally, I disagree with your interpretation of 7.08 (b). The rule reads (as you have posted), "A runner is out when...hinders a fielder attempting to make a play on a batted ball."

You seem (correct me if I am wrong) to hang your hat on the fact that rule 7.08 (b) says "play on a batted ball," while rule 7.09 says "...field a batted ball."

As a lawyer, I would agree with you that normally the use of two different words would have significance. But, as J/R, JEA and others have taken pains to say...the rule book is a hodge-podge of poorly drafted rules. This is just another example. As J/R (and others) have pointed out, the analysis of runner interference against a fielder with possession of the ball combines these rules. The analysis I gave prior (which you said may only apply to a 7.09(j) analysis), applies to both in as much as that same analysis set forth in more formal interpretations says it applies to both.