Runner hit by batted ball

[hill2933]

First off new here and new to HS ball. Had this in a game the other day and still not sure if we handled it right.

 

 

Tie game in 7th R1 and 1 out. F3 holding runner and playing in front of baseline. Batter hits a hard grounder down first base line that goes past F3's glove and strikes R1 in back foot just a step or two from base. Partner points to R1 but makes no out call (don't know if he said anything or not.) F3 recovers ball and makes play on BR and partner gives safe signal as BR beat throw to the base. Partner then calls R1 out for being hit by batted ball. Coach comes out to him saying that ball had passed F3 and that R1 should not be out. Partner comes to me and I tell him I had R1 behind F3 and ball was clearly past him when it hit runner. No other infielder had a play and I told partner I think it should have been live ball. We end up changing the out call and have R2 R1 with one out. Of course the kid that got hit comes around to score what would be the winning run and we get an earful on the way out.

 

Talking about it after the game I was confident we got the call right and partner said he was going to call assigner and check with him too. Partner called me later and said his original call was right and runner should have been out. Been rereading the rule book and still feel like it should have been live ball.  Since ball passed infielder other than pitcher and no other infielder had play on the ball it is live right?? Does it make a difference if partner killed the play when runner was hit?

[mstaylor]

You are correct, behind the fielders, no interference. The BR should have still been out. 

[BT_Blue]

Michael, didn't the BR beat the play to first in the OP? So R1, R2 would be correct.

[mstaylor]

Michael, didn't the BR beat the play to first in the OP? So R1, R2 would be correct.

You are correct, I was thinking when he made the play on  the BR he was out.

[Kevin_K]

It sounds like you got it right.

 

What is the logic that your partner used to determine in hindsight that the runner should have been out?

[maven]

Your partner

 

Talking about it after the game I was confident we got the call right and partner said he was going to call assigner and check with him too. Partner called me later and said his original call was right and runner should have been out. Been rereading the rule book and still feel like it should have been live ball.  Since ball passed infielder other than pitcher and no other infielder had play on the ball it is live right?? Does it make a difference if partner killed the play when runner was hit?

 

Your partner was misreading 8-4-2k, which states that a runner is out when hit by a fair batted ball when...

 

k. is contacted by a fair batted ball before it touches an infielder, or after it passes any infielder, except the pitcher, and the umpire is convinced that another infielder has a play

 

When R1 is hit by the ball and he's behind F3 near the base, the second clause fails. That's not INT: live ball, play the bounce.

[hill2933]

He said he was told any time runner is hi by batted ball it is an out. Not sure if it was not explained clearly to assigner.

[maven]

He said he was told any time runner is hit by batted ball it is an out. Not sure if it was not explained clearly to assigner.

 

IIRC, the FED and OBR interps are somewhat different, but neither one says that.

 

The exception for a batted ball hit right at a fielder in front of a runner allows the runner to assume that the ball will be fielded. If the fielder boots it and the ball goes through him and into the runner, that's not INT.

[mtnump]

He either didn't really call the assignor or your assignor is wrong as well.  At least you got it right in your game...Way to go!

[noumpere]

 

He said he was told any time runner is hit by batted ball it is an out. Not sure if it was not explained clearly to assigner.

 

IIRC, the FED and OBR interps are somewhat different, but neither one says that.

 

The exception for a batted ball hit right at a fielder in front of a runner allows the runner to assume that the ball will be fielded. If the fielder boots it and the ball goes through him and into the runner, that's not INT.

 

You are right that the FED and OBR interps and rules on this are different but a good rule of thumb in OBR is what is in red unless your exception applies and the exception to the exception (another fielder) does not apply.  FED uses what has been described as the string theory to determine the basis for the call.

 

Back to the OP though, if the umpire had R1 being out then its an immediate dead ball and BR would be put at first so Partner should not have signaled "safe" on the play.

[hill2933]

We got together and changed the call and he asked me to explain the call to coaches. I kinda felt like I was stepping on his toes on it. How do you prefer to handle it when you reverse a call like this? Coach handled it really well. He acted like he had never heard this rule but once I explained it he never said another word about it.

[Mike Prince]

We got together and changed the call and he asked me to explain the call to coaches. I kinda felt like I was stepping on his toes on it. How do you prefer to handle it when you reverse a call like this? Coach handled it really well. He acted like he had never heard this rule but once I explained it he never said another word about it.

 

You "got together" but it's still his call so he should be the one to reverse it and explain to the coach.  He basically took himself out of it and threw you under the bus (in my opinion) in a passive/aggressive manner.  He was telling you he disagreed with your input (even though he came to you) and is making you stand up for his bad call.

[noumpere]

We got together and changed the call and he asked me to explain the call to coaches. I kinda felt like I was stepping on his toes on it. How do you prefer to handle it when you reverse a call like this? Coach handled it really well. He acted like he had never heard this rule but once I explained it he never said another word about it.

Since it was a rule thing and not just a "I have additional information for you" kind of thing on a judgement call, whoever is willing to stand up and say "I'm 110% sure of this rule" should be the one to make the call and the explanation.  Here that was you.  It's not the normal kind of get together to get it right kind of thing like on a pulled foot or swipe tag or dropped ball on a tag etc.

[Mudder]

How far was R1 behind the fielder?  Unless you're partner and you, having different angles, had differing opinions on the location of the runner and whether he was actually behind the fielder or not

[hill2933]

How far was R1 behind the fielder?  Unless you're partner and you, having different angles, had differing opinions on the location of the runner and whether he was actually behind the fielder or not

F3 was holding R1 at first and was standing in front of the baseline. R1 was a full step behind fielder. Partner didn't disagree that runner was behind fielder just that if runners gets hit he is out period.

[mstaylor]

@hill2933

As related, the runner not out in any code. Fed uses the string theory so it has a much lower standard, but he is OK anywhere.

[BuckeyeMike]

Ok, I'll bite, since i've never heard this.........what is " the string theory" ?? 

[maven]

An imaginary string connects the fringe infielders. If a batted ball hits a runner inside the string, the runner is out for INT.

maven

[mstaylor]

Maven , gives a decent explanation. In OBR, the term "through or by" a fielder is used and interpreted as a step and a reach. So if the infield is in , R1 goes on the pitch and he is struck by the batted ball while he is deeper than the F4, in Fed he is fine because it has crossed the string. Same play in OBR you have to decide if the exception applies. If the ball was between F4 and second, for example, and it is beyond his step and reach then the runner would out. This is just one example, it can happen in many different ways.