Gardy Wants an INT DP

[zoops]

http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/gameday/index.jsp?gid=2014_05_11_minmlb_detmlb_1&mode=video&content_id=32787327&tcid=vpp_copy_32787327

 

No doubt a tough break for the Twins here as it almost surely would have been a double play and the end of the inning (although they did get the next batter so no runs ended up scoring), but I think the umpires were right to only get one out on this since I don't see anything "willful or deliberate" on the part of R2.  I believe in FED rules you could get two here no questions asked.  

 

OBR rule 7.09f: If, in the judgment of the umpire, a base runner willfully and deliberately interferes with a batted ball or a fielder in the act of fielding a batted ball with the obvious intent to break up a double play, the ball is dead. The umpire shall call the runner out for interference and also call out the batter-runner because of the action of his teammate. In no event may bases be run or runs scored because of such action by a runner.

 

FED rule 8-4-2g:  ...If, in the judgment of the umpire, a runner ­including the batter-runner interferes in any way and prevents a double play anywhere, two shall be declared out (the runner who interfered and the other runner involved). If a retired runner interferes, and in the judgment of the umpire, another runner could have been put out, the umpire shall declare that runner out. 

 

Pretty much anytime Gardy argues a call and Joe West is involved, you know what the end result will be...

[UMP45]

Who's Gardy?

[maven]

Umpire's prerogative to get 2? Haha. Those TV guys crack me up every time!

 

I agree with the ruling on the field: not willful and deliberate, so no DP.

 

I agree with @zoops, too: in a FED game, I definitely get 2 on this one.

 

@UMP45: Ron Gardenhire, Twins skipper.

[UMP45]

I thought so. I wasn't sure. I don't know nick names. What managers, coaches, or players are called bores me.

[GreyhoundAggie]

I don't get two on this in FED. That is not the correct rule guys.

 

under FED. It's 8-4-2 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 (5-1-1f, 6-1-5).

1. If a runner is touching his base when he is hit by an infield fly, he is not out, but the batter is out by
the infield fly rule. The ball is dead, even in the exception.

 

So you only get the out on the runner. Batter gets 1st. All other runners advance if forced. It's only 2 if the he intentionally contacts the ball.

[zoops]

I don't see anything about intent needed. 

[grayhawk]

@GreyhoundAggie the rule you quoted is referenced in 8-4-2g and is then followed by the language about getting 2. It's 2 outs in Fed.

[maven]

@grayhawk: he's right, the proper provision is 8-4-2-k, and that clause does not contain the language from 8-4-2-g regarding getting 2.
 
@GreyhoundAggie: he's right, in any case of runner INT, the umpire has authority to rule 2 out if it prevents a DP. See 8.4.2 COMMENT: "The umpire has authority to declare two runners out when a runner or retired runner illegally interferes and prevents a double play. In such circumstances, the runner who interferes is out and the other runner involved is also out."

 

As I said: for FED I'm getting 2 on the play in the video, which was an easy DP ball.

[goody14]

Question for the vets...

 

For FED, is this an instance where you take into account the skill level of the players?

 

For instance is it an almost automatic DP at varsity, less at JV, and even less for Freshman?  Or do you save the headache and just get 2?

[Thunderheads]

my personal opinion on this;

MOST coaches don't know the rules, ..most coaches don't know the difference between FED and OBR.

 

Although in FED this is a bonified slam the door shut DP for INT ..... you're going to get a $h!tstorm from the offensive coach, guaranteed.

[maven]

Question for the vets...

 

For FED, is this an instance where you take into account the skill level of the players?

 

For instance is it an almost automatic DP at varsity, less at JV, and even less for Freshman?  Or do you save the headache and just get 2?

 

The language in the rules varies: sometimes, it's "if a DP is possible," sometimes "if a DP is likely," sometimes it's just "prevented a DP."

 

For me, skill level is relevant to applying this rule. But FED has this rule in order to favor the defense a bit on runner INT, so I'll lean toward giving the out when I can.

 

That said, it's harder to "prevent" a DP in frosh ball than varsity.

[ALStripes17]

Question for the vets...

For FED, is this an instance where you take into account the skill level of the players?

For instance is it an almost automatic DP at varsity, less at JV, and even less for Freshman? Or do you save the headache and just get 2?

The language in the rules varies: sometimes, it's "if a DP is possible," sometimes "if a DP is likely," sometimes it's just "prevented a DP."

For me, skill level is relevant to applying this rule. But FED has this rule in order to favor the defense a bit on runner INT, so I'll lean toward giving the out when I can.

That said, it's harder to "prevent" a DP in frosh ball than varsity.

I get 2 here as well on any level of HS ball. Hard 3 bounce candy hop to SS, defense gets the major benefit here in FED.

[zoops]

Case play 5.1.1j seems to give us the FED ruling here, which would only get one out:

 

5.1.1 SITUATION J:

With a fielder in position to make a play, R2 is on first and R1 is (a) between second and third or (b) touching second. R1 is hit by ball batted by B3.

RULING: The ball becomes dead immediately in (a) and (b). In (a), R1 is out. He is also out in (b), unless it is declared an infield fly. In (a) and (b), unless B3 is out because it is an infield fly, he is entitled to first base. R2 is awarded second base.

 

Although this does kind of contradict 8.4.2 Comment:  

The umpire has authority to declare two runners out when a runner or retired runner illegally interferes and prevents a double play. In such circumstances, the runner who interferes is out and the other runner involved is also out. Also, when the batter-runner interferes, the umpire may declare two outs. The batter-runner is declared out and so is the runner who has advanced the nearest to home plate.

[zoops]

On the 8.4.2 Comment, do they mean you can get the second out only if the runner physically hinders the ability of the fielder to make a play on the batted ball?

 

8.4.2 SITUATION D:

All bases are occupied with no outs when B4 hits a ground ball to F4 and R3 collides with him as he is fielding the ball.

RULING: The ball became dead when interference occurred. R3 is declared out. If the umpire rules that F4 could have executed a double play, then the umpire shall declare two outs (the runner who interfered, and the other runner or batter-runner involved). If the umpire rules that only one runner could have been put out, then only R3 is out. No runs may score and all other runners shall return to bases occupied at the time of interference.

[maven]

On the 8.4.2 Comment, do they mean you can get the second out only if the runner physically hinders the ability of the fielder to make a play on the batted ball?

I don't think so. Any runner INT could in principle yield 2 outs.

 

What you're required to judge is how "possible" or "likely" a DP was without the INT. A slow roller to F6 is almost never a DP, for example. A hard grounder in the hole between F3 and F4 that hits R1 is probably not a DP either.

 

For the other end of the spectrum: the OP was definitely a DP ball.

 

For plays that are not obviously DP balls, but not obviously NOT DP balls, give the benefit of the doubt to the defense.

[GreyhoundAggie]

I disagree completely. I have always had this called as only 1 out and at every rules clinic I have been to.

 

You are combining two seperate rules to get at the double play and interference.

 

Note the rulebook doesn't define a runner getting hit by a batted ball as interference. It just says "he is out".

 

If he intentionally lets the ball hit him, 2 all day. But this is only a 1 out scenario.

 

I don't believe there is any intent to be different from OBR on this ruling.

[Thunderheads]

I disagree completely. I have always had this called as only 1 out and at every rules clinic I have been to.

 

You are combining two seperate rules to get at the double play and interference.

 

Note the rulebook doesn't define a runner getting hit by a batted ball as interference. It just says "he is out".

 

If he intentionally lets the ball hit him, 2 all day. But this is only a 1 out scenario.

 

I don't believe there is any intent to be different from OBR on this ruling.

cite coming in ......................3.............................................2.......................................................1

 

@GreyhoundAggie ....

isn't 8.4.2 situation D good enough to refute what you just said?

[scrounge]

I think @GreyhoundAggie has this one right. While the comment at the start of the case book does appear to back getting 2 outs, a closer look shows it's talking about interference. So let's look at the Rule 2 definition of interference:

 

ART. 1 . . . Offensive interference is an act (physical or verbal) by the team at bat:

a. which interferes with, obstructs, impedes, hinders or confuses any fielder attempting to make a play; or

b. when a runner creates malicious contact with any fielder, with or without the ball, in or out of the baseline; or

c. a coach physically assists a runner during playing action.

 

In Rule 8, getting hit by the ball is indeed in a different sub-section than the penalties for interference, so a reasonable and IMO correct reading is that getting hit by the ball - provided there is no willful or purposeful action that would fall under the definition of interference above - is simply an out, not interference. 8-4-2b specifically includes language calling that interference, 8-4-2g goes into great lengths on what constitutes interference, but 8-4-2k does not call this interference, just an out. Why should that be assumed to be any different than any other definition of an out under 8-4?

[Old Skool]

8.4.2 SITUATION D:

All bases are occupied with no outs when B4 hits a ground ball to F4 and R3 collides with him as he is fielding the ball.

RULING: The ball became dead when interference occurred. R3 is declared out. If the umpire rules that F4 could have executed a double play, then the umpire shall declare two outs (the runner who interfered, and the other runner or batter-runner involved). If the umpire rules that only one runner could have been put out, then only R3 is out. No runs may score and all other runners shall return to bases occupied at the time of interference.

 

I believe that this 8-4-2 Sit. D is describing a tag that would be made by F4 & the subsequent prevention that would be made in turning the DP on the throw to 1B.  I have always been taught in all situations that you cannot assume a double play to be made. (Ex: 6-4-3 DP).  The "Get 2" mentality is making assumptions that the defense can actually turn two.  I have never seen two outs awarded for a situation like what occurred in the OP.  In talking with my son this morning who is in MiLB he concurs that you can't get a DP here.

[soupcan]

 

8.4.2 SITUATION D:

All bases are occupied with no outs when B4 hits a ground ball to F4 and R3 collides with him as he is fielding the ball.

RULING: The ball became dead when interference occurred. R3 is declared out. If the umpire rules that F4 could have executed a double play, then the umpire shall declare two outs (the runner who interfered, and the other runner or batter-runner involved). If the umpire rules that only one runner could have been put out, then only R3 is out. No runs may score and all other runners shall return to bases occupied at the time of interference.

 

I believe that this 8-4-2 Sit. D is describing a tag that would be made by F4 & the subsequent prevention that would be made in turning the DP on the throw to 1B.  I have always been taught in all situations that you cannot assume a double play to be made. (Ex: 6-4-3 DP).  The "Get 2" mentality is making assumptions that the defense can actually turn two.  I have never seen two outs awarded for a situation like what occurred in the OP.  In talking with my son this morning who is in MiLB he concurs that you can't get a DP here.

 

I agree that this would not be a DP in MiLB, but I think the discussion here is referring to FED. What if the runner willfully kicked the ball, does the situation change? I don't think the FED distiguishes between intent and no intent, just that a DP could have been executed. Why should the defense be penalized for an infraction by the offense?

[Old Skool]

Even in FED this situation is nothing more than an out on the runner hit by batted ball between 2nd & 3rd.  The OP occurred in OBR.   I primarily call FED & USSSA and nothing in my almost 10 years has ever indicated to me this would get 2 outs at any level. 

[maven]

I disagree completely. I have always had this called as only 1 out and at every rules clinic I have been to.

 

You are combining two separate rules to get at the double play and interference.

 

Note the rulebook doesn't define a runner getting hit by a batted ball as interference. It just says "he is out".

 

If he intentionally lets the ball hit him, 2 all day. But this is only a 1 out scenario.

 

I don't believe there is any intent to be different from OBR on this ruling.

 

Incorrect. Being hit by a batted ball is also listed in 8-4-2-g as an example of INT and explicitly links 8-4-2-g with 8-4-2-k:

 

g. intentionally interferes with a throw or a thrown ball; or he hinders a fielder on his initial attempt to field a batted ball. A fielder is not protected, except from intentional contact if he misplays the ball and has to move from his original location; or his being put out is prevented by an ­illegal act by anyone connected with the team (2-21-1, 3-2-2, 3) or by the batter-runner; for runner returning to base (8-2-6); and for runner being hit by a batted ball (8-4-2k). If, in the judgment of the umpire, a runner ­including the batter-runner interferes in any way and prevents a double play anywhere, two shall be declared out (the runner who interfered and the other runner involved). If a retired runner interferes, and in the judgment of the umpire, another runner could have been put out, the umpire shall declare that runner out. If the umpire is uncertain who would have been played on, the runner closest to home shall be called out;

The instruction to call a DP appears IMMEDIATELY AFTER this very clause. I am not inventing the connection.

 

8.4.2 COMMENT provides clear guidance for calling a DP that is different from OBR.

[noumpere]

  I have always been taught in all situations that you cannot assume a double play to be made. (

 That's a scorekeeping rule and has nothing to do with umpiring.

 

FED allows you to get two outs in more situations than OBR.  How it's actually called in your area might vary.

[soupcan]

 

I disagree completely. I have always had this called as only 1 out and at every rules clinic I have been to.

 

You are combining two separate rules to get at the double play and interference.

 

Note the rulebook doesn't define a runner getting hit by a batted ball as interference. It just says "he is out".

 

If he intentionally lets the ball hit him, 2 all day. But this is only a 1 out scenario.

 

I don't believe there is any intent to be different from OBR on this ruling.

 

Incorrect. Being hit by a batted ball is also listed in 8-4-2-g as an example of INT and explicitly links 8-4-2-g with 8-4-2-k:

 

g. intentionally interferes with a throw or a thrown ball; or he hinders a fielder on his initial attempt to field a batted ball. A fielder is not protected, except from intentional contact if he misplays the ball and has to move from his original location; or his being put out is prevented by an ­illegal act by anyone connected with the team (2-21-1, 3-2-2, 3) or by the batter-runner; for runner returning to base (8-2-6); and for runner being hit by a batted ball (8-4-2k). If, in the judgment of the umpire, a runner ­including the batter-runner interferes in any way and prevents a double play anywhere, two shall be declared out (the runner who interfered and the other runner involved). If a retired runner interferes, and in the judgment of the umpire, another runner could have been put out, the umpire shall declare that runner out. If the umpire is uncertain who would have been played on, the runner closest to home shall be called out;

The instruction to call a DP appears IMMEDIATELY AFTER this very clause. I am not inventing the connection.

 

8.4.2 COMMENT provides clear guidance for calling a DP that is different from OBR.

 

I'm with Maven.

[scrounge]

The way this is written is absolutely atrocious...why even have 8-4-2k if it's already covered by 8-4-2g? While I see maven's point, a literal reading of 2g would be that that phrase is for protecting a fielder on the initial attempt to play the ball. So now we have some weird third category, where if the runner is hit by a batted ball AND there's a fielder making his initial attempt to field the ball, it's interference under 8-4-2g, but otherwise it's just an out under 8-4-2k, except 8-4-2g seems to incorporate 8-4-2k but not really, since the context/setup of that entire section was situations when a fielder is protected on his initial play......yadda yadda yadda.

 

I don't play a lawyer (though I did take the LSAT once) but this is horrible statutory construction.