ball caught by offensive player

[TwoDot]

I had this exact play happen in a LL majors game. I am a BB referee that also does some LL games. What I did was to judge the line drive a foul, It would have landed foul, no one was in position to make a play on the ball, 3B was playing in front of the base anyway. I killed the ball, had a foul and made sure the runners did not advance.

I had thought that a runner could not be called for interference when legally on base? am I missing something? Thanks for the help!

[canump]

Originally Posted by TwoDot

I had this exact play happen in a LL majors game. I am a BB referee that also does some LL games. What I did was to judge the line drive a foul, It would have landed foul, no one was in position to make a play on the ball, 3B was playing in front of the base anyway. I killed the ball, had a foul and made sure the runners did not advance.

I had thought that a runner could not be called for interference when legally on base? am I missing something? Thanks for the help!

With F5 playing in front of the bag and as long as F6 was not over where she could have had a play on the ball, which I doubt was the case in the opening post then you would have a live ball situation as long as the contact was over fair terriotory, if it was over foul ground then all you would is a foul ball as you say in your judgement. And yes a runner can be called for interference if said contact was judged to be intentional and as long as a feilder had a chance for a play.
Since I don't do BB can someone clarify this ruling for me. All I do is fastball.

[LMan]

Originally Posted by TwoDot

I had this exact play happen in a LL majors game. I am a BB referee that also does some LL games. What I did was to judge the line drive a foul, It would have landed foul, no one was in position to make a play on the ball, 3B was playing in front of the base anyway. I killed the ball, had a foul and made sure the runners did not advance.

I had thought that a runner could not be called for interference when legally on base? am I missing something? Thanks for the help!

That's some inventive rules-creation you did there. In actuality, the baserunner, standing on a base, in fair territory, who is struck by a batted ball (unless its an infield fly, clearly not in this case) is out.

You got the 'killed the ball' part correct, anyhow.

If the ball struck the runner in foul ground, then its a foul ball. But that's dependent on where the contact occurred, not 'it would have landed foul.'

[Chess Ref]

Originally Posted by LMan

That's some inventive rules-creation you did there. In actuality, the baserunner, standing on a base, in fair territory, who is struck by a batted ball (unless its an infield fly, clearly not in this case) is out.

You got the 'killed the ball' part correct, anyhow.

If the ball struck the runner in foul ground, then its a foul ball. But that's dependent on where the contact occurred, not 'it would have landed foul.'

I'll look it up in a minute but I don't think thats correct either. In RS #44 it says the exact opposite of what you say.....Runner not out unless it was intentional act...

Assuming I'm reading your reply correctly LMAN

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by Chess Ref

I'll look it up in a minute but I don't think thats correct either. In RS #44 it says the exact opposite of what you say.....Runner not out unless it was intentional act...

Assuming I'm reading your reply correctly LMAN

And that's what a number of us are saying. If, in your judgment, the runner intentionally grabbed the ball, he's out. We're saying that if he had enough time to grab the ball, he had enough time to either get out of the way or, quite simply, not grab the ball.

[Chess Ref]

Originally Posted by NCASAUmp

And that's what a number of us are saying. If, in your judgment, the runner intentionally grabbed the ball, he's out. We're saying that if he had enough time to grab the ball, he had enough time to either get out of the way or, quite simply, not grab the ball.

I agree.. See my #3 post.

[celebur]

Originally Posted by Chess Ref

I'll look it up in a minute but I don't think thats correct either. In RS #44 it says the exact opposite of what you say.....Runner not out unless it was intentional act...

Assuming I'm reading your reply correctly LMAN

I'm thinking LMan based his reply on baseball rules because Twodot mentioned that he's a "BB referee".

[SC Ump]

First... the ball has to touch the runner before he can catch it.

My understanding is:

If the ball had NOT passed an infielder, or another other fielder had a chance to make an out, the ball is dead the moment it touched the fielder. (He did not "handle" a live ball.) If it was a fair ball and the fielder was in contact with the base, award the BR a base hit and runners advance if forced.

If the ball HAD passed an infielder, and no other fielder had a chance to make an out, then we've got the runner handling a live ball. I've got dead ball and out.

Edited to add: The above is all obviously with the assumption that this was a "self preservation" move and not intentional. Also, noting some BB discussion above and that my statement aboout not out when in contact with the base are meant to be SB only.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by SC Ump

First... the ball has to touch the runner before he can catch it.

My understanding is:

If the ball had NOT passed an infielder, or another other fielder had a chance to make an out, the ball is dead the moment it touched the fielder. (He did not "handle" a live ball.) If it was a fair ball and the fielder was in contact with the base, award the BR a base hit and runners advance if forced.

If the ball HAD passed an infielder, and no other fielder had a chance to make an out, then we've got the runner handling a live ball. I've got dead ball and out.

Edited to add: The above is all obviously with the assumption that this was a "self preservation" move and not intentional. Also, noting some BB discussion above and that my statement aboout not out when in contact with the base are meant to be SB only.

Interesting way of looking at it. If this happened as quick as the OP indicated, I would contend the contact with the ball and catch are simultaneous.