Jump to content
  • 0
Sign in to follow this  
Guest Mike T

Runner hit by deflected ball

Question

Guest Mike T

Runner on second base, ball hit up the middle and deflects off the pitchers leg towards third base. The runner off second hits the ball while the third baseman is trying to make a play. Umpire on the field calls the runner out, but on review they let the runner stay on third and the batter advanced to second base in the confusion. Whats the right call?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

11 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0
22 minutes ago, Guest Mike T said:

Runner on second base, ball hit up the middle and deflects off the pitchers leg towards third base. The runner off second hits the ball while the third baseman is trying to make a play. Umpire on the field calls the runner out, but on review they let the runner stay on third and the batter advanced to second base in the confusion. Whats the right call?

Yes.  Being hit by a deflected batted ball is not interference. Play on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Register or Sign In to remove these ads
  • 0
22 minutes ago, Rich Ives said:

Yes.  Being hit by a deflected batted ball is not interference. Play on.

But they didn't play on. Place the runners? If the batter was placed at 2B I would think R2 would be at HP. HTBT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
1 hour ago, Jimurray said:

But they didn't play on.

Where does it say that?  It says the umpire called R2 out - no more. Doesn't same time was called. Doesn't say the umpire yelled "interference". 

Then it says on review they "unouted" R2. As they should.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
7 hours ago, Rich Ives said:

Not applicable. The runner avoided the fielder. 

? The first sentence seems pretty applicable to the situation at hand. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

To the OP -- note that there is a difference between a runner being hit by a deflected ball (play on, assuming no intent), and a runner interfering with a fielder's attempt to field a deflected ball (still INT).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
1 hour ago, Gfoley4 said:

? The first sentence seems pretty applicable to the situation at hand. 

That's right: the runner is not guilty of INT with the ball when it contacts him after deflecting off a fielder.

I suspect that Ives was responding to the bolded part of your quotation, which concerns INT with a fielder: a fielder who is fielding a deflected ball (F5 here) is still protected, and the runner must avoid him (which he did). He probably thought that you were emphasizing that passage, which he is correct is not applicable here.

When you post a long passage, it's advisable to gloss it to call attention to the passage you regard as governing for the case at hand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
8 hours ago, Rich Ives said:

Where does it say that?  It says the umpire called R2 out - no more. Doesn't same time was called. Doesn't say the umpire yelled "interference".

As there was no play on R2, presumably the out was called for INT. Even if the umpire did not call time or yell "interference," the INT makes the ball dead, not the call. Even if he rules INT after processing it for a moment, the ball will be dead by rule at the moment of the INT, not when the umpire makes up his mind.

This is situation where a changed call put a team at a disadvantage: had the umpire promptly announced "That's nothing!" the defense could have played on the BR advancing to 2B. As the BR probably had not acquired 1B when the "INT" occurred, I'd put him back at 1B, and leave R2 at 3B.

Then everyone's equally unhappy: the defense loses their out for INT, and the offense loses their extra base for the BR. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
8 hours ago, Rich Ives said:

Where does it say that?  It says the umpire called R2 out - no more. Doesn't same time was called. Doesn't say the umpire yelled "interference". 

Then it says on review they "unouted" R2. As they should.

If the batter advanced to 2B in the "confusion" I would think at least the defense didn't "play on".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
1 hour ago, Jimurray said:

This is reference only here because of the strange behavior of the forum software.

3 hours ago, Gfoley4 said:

? The first sentence seems pretty applicable to the situation at hand. 

It says the ball hit the runner while the fielder was making a play. Where does it say the runner interfered with the fielder? The outcome indicates there was no interference with the fielder either or R2 would still be out,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Answer this question...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoticons maximum are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×