Correct call?

[chapmaja]

I had this situation tonight. R1 on 1st, B2 hits a very hard ground ball towards 1b. The ball hits the heel of R1 as he is running from first to second. Even after hitting R1, F3 picks it up and can make a play on the batter-runner. The ball was hit hard enough he likely could have gotten a double play.

Using ASA rules was this call correct? I immediately call dead ball. R1 is out for interference since F3 could have made play (the ball was hit right at F3). B2 is awarded first base. I was using Rule 8-7-K and 8-7 Note Section J-L.

The defense is arguing (not that strongly), that the since they could have gotten a DP, the batter-runner also should be out. My explanation is that the ball is dead once it hit the runner off the base. The runner is out, and since all play immediately ceases, the rules state that the batter-runner is awarded first base.

As an aside, the defense was arguing they could have gotten a DP. I'm not sure they would have gotten one out if a throw was involved in the play. They lost both games of a DH 27-12 (15 run 4 inning mercy rule-league rule), and 30-10 in 5 innings (time limit/mercy rule). Many of the runs resulted from plays were the ball was thrown around the infield.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

I had this situation tonight. R1 on 1st, B2 hits a very hard ground ball towards 1b. The ball hits the heel of R1 as he is running from first to second. Even after hitting R1, F3 picks it up and can make a play on the batter-runner. The ball was hit hard enough he likely could have gotten a double play.

Using ASA rules was this call correct? I immediately call dead ball. R1 is out for interference since F3 could have made play (the ball was hit right at F3). B2 is awarded first base. I was using Rule 8-7-K and 8-7 Note Section J-L.

The defense is arguing (not that strongly), that the since they could have gotten a DP, the batter-runner also should be out. My explanation is that the ball is dead once it hit the runner off the base. The runner is out, and since all play immediately ceases, the rules state that the batter-runner is awarded first base.

Yep, correct call.

[chapmaja]

Secondary question. In my case, it was very clear that there could have been a play made.

Looking at the rule in the ASA book, it says "until the ball passes an infielder except the pitcher."

How would you handle this situation.

F4 and F6 are playing normal positions behind the base path. Runner on batter hits a line drive up the middle a two steps to the 3b side of second. The runner from second takes a step off the base and gets hit by the line drive. The SS, who is still behind the play had no chance to get the ball.

Am I correct in saying that based on 8-7-K the runner is still out? The ball had not passed an infielder, but at the same time, there was no play to be made.

After the game I heard the defensive team manager telling his team that anytime a batter ball hits a runner off the base, it is an out. I did not tell them that that wasn't true. A batted ball can hit a runner off the base and no out be called.

[MD Longhorn]

There is no judgement necessary regarding whether someone had a play, when the ball strikes the runner. The new sitch is an out as well.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

There is no judgement necessary regarding whether someone had a play, when the ball strikes the runner. The new sitch is an out as well.

In THIS sitch, true; because it hasn't passed an infielder. As a blanket an unqualified statement, NOT true. If the ball has passed an infielder before striking the runner, there IS judgment necessary.

Chapmaja, I am wondering. You post situations, cite the rule, but question if you made the correct call because players questioned it? What is it you are looking for?

[MD Longhorn]

Good point. I didn't want to muddy the water so to speak - he was questioning whether the possible non-existence of a play mattered before it had passed and infielder. My blanket statement was intended to cover only that situation - but the way I worded it, it could have been misunderstood. Thanks for the clarification.

[CecilOne]

I think you (we) are saying:
1) ball striking runner before infielder does not require a possible play
2) even if possible, play is negated by the IDB
3) the time judgment is needed is whether another fielder could get an out

Also, isn't the DP ruling based on interference with a fielder or thrown ball and not a batted ball?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Good point. I didn't want to muddy the water so to speak - he was questioning whether the possible non-existence of a play mattered before it had passed and infielder. My blanket statement was intended to cover only that situation - but the way I worded it, it could have been misunderstood. Thanks for the clarification.

I don't think so. A clear scenario was given. Offering a response based upon what isn't offered is another thread. Response to multiple scenarios, especially those not offered, is what muddies the waters.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

I don't think so. A clear scenario was given. Offering a response based upon what isn't offered is another thread. Response to multiple scenarios, especially those not offered, is what muddies the waters.

Maybe, but offering a slightly different play is often helpful in explaining why the proposed rationale is valid or invalid.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Adam

Maybe, but offering a slightly different play is often helpful in explaining why the proposed rationale is valid or invalid.

Another play? Okay, but isn't what was offered.