Runner out or safe

[strike4]

Originally Posted by Manny A

First off, you need to stop referring to F4 being able to catch the ball. That implies that the ball is still in flight. Not that it really makes any difference in the play itself, but the proper way to describe the play is that "...F4 would have fielded the ball and tagged 2B..."

Now, you say that R1 was hit by the batted ball as she was sliding into second base. Hmmm... I'm not sure I'm seeing F4 being able to field the ball and tag second base ahead of R1 if R1 is already into her slide here.

This one is so bang-bang, I would have a hard time ruling that R1 interfered with F4 before the deflected ball hit her while she was sliding into second. I would have to clearly see that F4 stopped or jumped back to avoid R1 before R1 slid into second base to rule interference.

You are correct in in the "fielded" wording. I think you see my point on the bang-bang part that makes this play a problem. Thanks.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Initial play is irrelevant to the scenario in the OP.

[Tex]

A few years ago, I had ask our state (Texas) rules interpreter the difference between these two rules (2-47-3 and 8-6-10) to determine "Initial play or a Deflected ball" for a hit ball.

Rule's Interpreter advice
"You ask yourself, who caused the ball to hit the runner, if it was the defense, the runner is not out, if the runner prevents the defense from playing their game, it is an out."

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Tex

A few years ago, I had ask our state (Texas) rules interpreter the difference between these two rules (2-47-3 and 8-6-10) to determine "Initial play or a Deflected ball" for a hit ball.

Rule's Interpreter advice
"You ask yourself, who caused the ball to hit the runner, if it was the defense, the runner is not out, if the runner prevents the defense from playing their game, it is an out."

Was that Walter? Sounds like him.

[Andy]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Initial play is irrelevant to the scenario in the OP.

I'm going to ask you to explain this.

Initial play (as defined in FED rules) is the centerpoint of this whole play.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Andy

I'm going to ask you to explain this.

Initial play (as defined in FED rules) is the centerpoint of this whole play.

It's the OP perception that it is the centerpoint. This is a deflected batted ball hitting the runner not in contact with a base. It is not interfering with a fielder attempting to field a batted ball on the initial play.

[shagpal]

pull the word "act" on these boys.

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

It's the OP perception that it is the centerpoint. This is a deflected batted ball hitting the runner not in contact with a base. It is not interfering with a fielder attempting to field a batted ball on the initial play.

[shagpal]

OK, I found this. comment if you think this does or does not apply.

this reads as an initial play per the casebook 2.47.3B.

in this case, it states that if the ball deflects off the pitcher, it is still considered an initial play. however the case refers to a runner contacting the fielder after a deflected ball. it is not addressing a runner being struck by that deflected ball.

per 2.47.3B, if it is deflected off of any fielder other than the pitcher, it is no longer an initial play.

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

It's the OP perception that it is the centerpoint. This is a deflected batted ball hitting the runner not in contact with a base. It is not interfering with a fielder attempting to field a batted ball on the initial play.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by shagpal

OK, I found this. comment if you think this does or does not apply.

this reads as an initial play per the casebook 2.47.3B.

in this case, it states that if the ball deflects off the pitcher, it is still considered an initial play. however the case refers to a runner contacting the fielder after a deflected ball. it is not addressing a runner being struck by that deflected ball.

per 2.47.3B, if it is deflected off of any fielder other than the pitcher, it is no longer an initial play.

Again, and again and again.........there is no interference with the fielder, so the initial play issue is irrelevant.

[MD Longhorn]

I'm stunned that this thread has become 4 pages of actual umpires (not fans and coaches) who don't see the glaring difference between interfering with a fielder and getting struck by a ball (or interfering with a ball). They are treated completely differently.

[shagpal]

who said interference? there is no "act". didn't you take everyone on that road before?

in the casebook, there was contact w/ the fielder, so that was the act. this is a deflected ball, but the casebook calls it an "initial play". let you guys reconcile that.

I just posted what I found. I don't even work HS.

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Again, and again and again.........there is no interference with the fielder, so the initial play issue is irrelevant.