1st time to see this

[wbeene13]

R3 1 out foul pop fly to right field, ball is caught for 2nd out. R3 tags and attempts to score ball is thrown home an there is going to be a close play at the plate, but the ball hits the batter/runner in the back as he is making his way back down the 1st baseline headed towards 3rd base dugout. What do we have?  I would like a rules reference for FED and OBR if anyone can find it please.

[bam]

play on.

[noumpere]

I think the closest "reference" you will get is the OBR "unintentional interference by a person authorized to be on the field"  3.15 or something.

[wbeene13]

I think the closest "reference" you will get is the OBR "unintentional interference by a person authorized to be on the field"  3.15 or something.

This unfortunately doesnt cover it and when you read on in the comments to Rule 3.15 it stilll fails to cover this situation

3.15

No person shall be allowed on the playing field during a game except players and

coaches in uniform, managers, news photographers authorized by the home team,

umpires, officers of the law in uniform and watchmen or other employees of the home

club. In case of unintentional interference with play by any person herein authorized to be

on the playing field (except members of the team at bat who are participating in the game,

or a base coach, any of whom interfere with a fielder attempting to field a batted or thrown

ball; or an umpire) the ball is alive and in play. If the interference is intentional, the ball

shall be dead at the moment of the interference and the umpire shall impose such penalties

as in his opinion will nullify the act of interference.

[DVA7130]

"That's nothing!" with a safe signal.

[mjr_2013]

Unless intentional, I have nothing.

[NovaScotiaBlue]

This would be ruled the same way as in the 1978 world series. In that case it was the back half of a double play. Reggie Jackon (R1) had been put out at second on the force but the throw to 1st hit him in the hip. The Dogers wanted an intereference call arguing he had to get out of the way.   The umpires ruled that because there was no intenet, there was no interference.   
***(that's if you agree there was no intenet..video says otherwise, but that's history now..     *** 

[wbeene13]

would OBR 7.09 (E) apply? I think this is probably going to answer the question. 

 

7.09

It is interference by a batter or a runner when—

(e) Any batter or runner who has just been put out, or any runner who has just scored,

hinders or impedes any following play being made on a runner. Such runner shall

be declared out for the interference of his teammate;

Rule 7.09(e) Comment: If the batter or a runner continues to advance after he has been put

out, he shall not by that act alone be considered as confusing, hindering or impeding the fielders.

[Rich Ives]

 

I think the closest "reference" you will get is the OBR "unintentional interference by a person authorized to be on the field"  3.15 or something.

This unfortunately doesnt cover it and when you read on in the comments to Rule 3.15 it stilll fails to cover this situation

3.15

No person shall be allowed on the playing field during a game except players and

coaches in uniform, managers, news photographers authorized by the home team,

umpires, officers of the law in uniform and watchmen or other employees of the home

club. In case of unintentional interference with play by any person herein authorized to be

on the playing field (except members of the team at bat who are participating in the game,

or a base coach, any of whom interfere with a fielder attempting to field a batted or thrown

ball; or an umpire) the ball is alive and in play. If the interference is intentional, the ball

shall be dead at the moment of the interference and the umpire shall impose such penalties

as in his opinion will nullify the act of interference.

 

 

Keep going.  In the comments it then goes on to describe what to do if the base coach is involved - notwithstanding what the rule says.

 

And this is being hit with a throw, not interfering with the fielder as he attempts to field the ball.

[wbeene13]

 

 

I think the closest "reference" you will get is the OBR "unintentional interference by a person authorized to be on the field"  3.15 or something.

This unfortunately doesnt cover it and when you read on in the comments to Rule 3.15 it stilll fails to cover this situation

3.15

No person shall be allowed on the playing field during a game except players and

coaches in uniform, managers, news photographers authorized by the home team,

umpires, officers of the law in uniform and watchmen or other employees of the home

club. In case of unintentional interference with play by any person herein authorized to be

on the playing field (except members of the team at bat who are participating in the game,

or a base coach, any of whom interfere with a fielder attempting to field a batted or thrown

ball; or an umpire) the ball is alive and in play. If the interference is intentional, the ball

shall be dead at the moment of the interference and the umpire shall impose such penalties

as in his opinion will nullify the act of interference.

 

 

Keep going.  In the comments it then goes on to describe what to do if the base coach is involved - notwithstanding what the rule says.

 

And this is being hit with a throw, not interfering with the fielder as he attempts to field the ball.

 

base coach was not involved in the play it was the batter/runner that got hit by thrown ball after being put out on the catch

[ricka56]

OBR 7.11 If a member of the team at bat (not a runner) hinders a fielder's attempt to field a thrown ball, the ball is dead, the runner on whom the play was being made is out.

 

How is he not hindering the fielding of a thrown ball if he is hit by it ?

 

Fed 3-2-3 ...nor shall the base coach or members of the team at bat fail to vacate any area needed by a fielder in his attempt to put out a batter or runner. 

 

How is the space where he got hit, not an area needed to attempt to put out a runner?

[wbeene13]

OBR 7.11 If a member of the team at bat (not a runner) hinders a fielder's attempt to field a thrown ball, the ball is dead, the runner on whom the play was being made is out.

 

How is he not hindering the fielding of a thrown ball if he is hit by it ?

 

Fed 3-2-3 ...nor shall the base coach or members of the team at bat fail to vacate any area needed by a fielder in his attempt to put out a batter or runner. 

 

How is the space where he got hit, not an area needed to attempt to put out a runner?

I'm thinking this is probably the correct answer

 

7.09

It is interference by a batter or a runner when—

(e) Any batter or runner who has just been put out, or any runner who has just scored,

hinders or impedes any following play being made on a runner. Such runner shall

be declared out for the interference of his teammate;

Rule 7.09(e) Comment: If the batter or a runner continues to advance after he has been put

out, he shall not by that act alone be considered as confusing, hindering or impeding the fielders.

[Mike Prince]

If he's on his way back to the 3B side dugout, why is he hugging the 1B line?  That seems a bit off, I am envisioning that he would be cutting across the infield like 99.9% of other players would.

[ricka56]

7.09 works also...without some get-out-of-jail-free card rule interp that I can't find, I have interference.

[wbeene13]

If he's on his way back to the 3B side dugout, why is he hugging the 1B line?  That seems a bit off, I am envisioning that he would be cutting across the infield like 99.9% of other players would.

I am assuming he was going to pick up his bat but if not it was because he is just a dumb kid lol.

 

7.09 works also...without some get-out-of-jail-free card rule reference/interp that I can't find, I have the runner out.

I called the runner out when it happened but wasnt sure if i was correct or not because I had never seen or heard of this happening.

[mbrown2097]

OBR -- Out.

7.09 (e)

It is interference by a batter or a runner when—

Any batter or runner who has just been put out, or any runner who has just scored,

hinders or impedes any following play being made on a runner. Such runner shall

be declared out for the interference of his teammate;

[VolUmp]

You can pretty much ignore anything Rich Ives says.  He's been off lately. He reads black and it says white.

This play had nothing to do with a fielder making a play on a batted ball, and neither does the OBR rule ref.

It's INT.  The books are clear.  No intent is needed on this play.

 

The 1978 World Series play was screwy because Reggie clearly had intent ... and still got no INT call.

He even leaned his hip ever so slightly into the throw.

Had he been hit in the gut or chest, then it would have never been a controversy.

 

Probably the most common "intent" you will see in MLB that doesn't get called often at all is this:

Runner rounding 3rd, heading home, throw coming from LF and runner runs a step or two inside the baseline

hoping to get hit in the back.

 

That should be INT every time.

Not only does he hinder a play, but it's clearly intentional.

[Replacematt]

OBR 7.11 If a member of the team at bat (not a runner) hinders a fielder's attempt to field a thrown ball, the ball is dead, the runner on whom the play was being made is out.

 

How is he not hindering the fielding of a thrown ball if he is hit by it ?

 

Fed 3-2-3 ...nor shall the base coach or members of the team at bat fail to vacate any area needed by a fielder in his attempt to put out a batter or runner. 

 

How is the space where he got hit, not an area needed to attempt to put out a runner?

 

Because he got hit with the ball. He never hindered a fielder nor was in an area the fielder needed. The fielder gets protection, not the throw.

[VolUmp]

 

Because he got hit with the ball. He never hindered a fielder nor was in an area the fielder needed. The fielder gets protection, not the throw.

 

 

Unless the throw was so errant that the B/R (out) was hit by a throw that had no chance, he's guilty of interference.

Your statement that the fielder is protected and not the throw is just wrong -- it's a half truth.

[bam]

Hindering a thrown ball must be intentional. I'm too lazy at this point to find a rule reference, so take my statement FWIW.

[Replacematt]

 

 

Because he got hit with the ball. He never hindered a fielder nor was in an area the fielder needed. The fielder gets protection, not the throw.

 

 

Unless the throw was so errant that the B/R (out) was hit by a throw that had no chance, he's guilty of interference.

Your statement that the fielder is protected and not the throw is just wrong -- it's a half truth.

 

 

Wrong. If what you said were true, you'd be seeing a kickball game with balls being thrown at retired runners.

[bam]

Alright, I manned-up and looked at the FED casebook. I have the following:

5.1.1 situation G: B1 hits a ground ball to left field. F7 throws the ball to the infield, where it hits an umpire or base runner. Is the ball dead?

RULING: not unless it is ruled interference by the base runner. Such ruling would be made if the runner deliberately allowed the ball to hit him.

I cannot find a rule reference that differentiates a retired runner in this situation.

[JHSump]

Consider this related scenario.  How would you rule?

 

Bases loaded.  Two outs.  Ground ball to F6, who decides to throw to F3 to force out the BR.  The ball is overthrown, but does not go out of play.  R3 scores, then starts jumping up and down 15 feet to the 1B side of the plate, encouraging R2 to score.  F3 recovers the overthrow and throws to F2.  R3 does not see the throw coming, and F2 is screened on the throw, by the jumping R3.  The thrown ball sails past F2 without his seeing it. And, so R2 scores (ending the game, by the way.)

 

Your ruling?  Is it nothing, and R2 scores, since R3 did not intentionally interfere with the thrown ball?  Or, is it interference by a teammate since R3 already scored and is now just a teammate at the wrong place at the wrong time, and he screened F2?

 

If it's thought this should be a separate thread, I would be glad to resubmit it.  But I think it's a related question to the OP.

[bam]

Consider this related scenario.  How would you rule?

 

Bases loaded.  Two outs.  Ground ball to F6, who decides to throw to F3 to force out the BR.  The ball is overthrown, but does not go out of play.  R3 scores, then starts jumping up and down 15 feet to the 1B side of the plate, encouraging R2 to score.  F3 recovers the overthrow and throws to F2.  R3 does not see the throw coming, and F2 is screened on the throw, by the jumping R3.  The thrown ball sails past F2 without his seeing it. And, so R2 scores (ending the game, by the way.)

 

Your ruling?  Is it nothing, and R2 scores, since R3 did not intentionally interfere with the thrown ball?  Or, is it interference by a teammate since R3 already scored and is now just a teammate at the wrong place at the wrong time, and he screened F2?

 

If it's thought this should be a separate thread, I would be glad to resubmit it.  But I think it's a related question to the OP.

Déjà vu. Play on

[Richvee]

I think 7.09(e) is pretty clear. This is a retired runner that hindered or impeded a following play being made on a runner. R3 is declared out.

 

For the record, the Reggie Jackson play should have never happened because Bill Russell intentionally dropped a line drive in order to turn a double play. Ball should have been dead, Piniella out, Munson on 2nd and Reggie returned to 1st. 

 

<iframe src='http://m.mlb.com/shared/video/embed/embed.html?content_id=28130223&topic_id=6479266&width=400&height=224&property=mlb' width='400' height='224' frameborder='0'>Your browser does not support iframes.</iframe>