Hit baserunner

[Guest MC]

The other team had a runner from 1st going to 2nd.  

We had our IF in, in front of runners.  Hitter hits the ball, 1B makes attempt at ball - never touches the ball, (couldn't get to the ball) the ball then hits base runner.  They call the runner safe.

Said because fielder made an attempt at ball, the runner was safe.  Didn't matter if he could get to it or not, he made an attempt.  

Never heard or seen this.  - Always assumed the runner was out.  I have never found it in any rule book.  

Had an umpire at another field say they made the right call.  Still not sure of that one. 

Am I crazy or did they just make this up?

[johnpatrick]

Judgment call.  It can be more than a step and a reach, but the umpire must judge that the fielder had a play on the ball to consider it "through or by".  PBUC 7.5:

Play 8: Runner on first base, first baseman positioned in front of the runner. Batter hits a ground ball just outside the reach of the first baseman as the first baseman dives to his right. The ball then strikes the runner. Ruling 8: In this play the ball is considered having passed by an infielder. The umpire must now judge if another infielder has the chance to make a play on the ball. If the umpire judges yes, then the runner is declared out. If the umpire judges no, the ball is alive and in play.

  (2014-08-11). PBUC Umpire Manual (Kindle Locations 2353-2357).  . Kindle Edition.

[Replacematt]

In OBR, if the ball goes by a fielder other than a pitcher (defined as within a step and a reach,) and no other fielder has a play, there is no interference.

In FED, if the ball goes past a line connecting all the infielders and touches a runner, and no other fielder has a play, there is no interference.

Sounds like there was no interference in your case.

[noumpere]

First, I think "step and reach" applies to balls that have been muffed, but stay with the vicinity of the fielder -- see the play in the professional section along the first base line.  For balls that are not deflected, the ball must go through or immediately by the fielder.  That's closer than a "step and a reach".

 

Under OBR, start with the premise that a runner is always out if hit by a batted ball.

Then realize that this isn't fair to the offense, because if the runner reasonably thought the fielder was going to field the ball, the runner should be protected.  So, add the "through or by" exception.

Then realize that this isn't fair to the defense because if another fielder had an opportunity to field the ball, the runner should still be out.  So, add the "another fielder" exception to the exception.

 

For the OP, it's HTBT and judgment on "through or by."

[grayhawk]

It was about a foot away after the dive, but the ball was a rocket, few people would get a glove on it.  The ball went past first baseman as he was making attempt and it hit runner. 

But from what everyone is saying I understand why the batter is out - or that he could have been called out.   

(Which I am fine with as long as it is explained well.)  My problem was with the weak explanation.  (The explanation was basically, that's how it's played....they couldn't give me any details - which made me more upset.  

One thing that bothered me, was basically the same exact thing happened to the two teams after us and it was called an out....

Thanks for all the help, I guess I need to apologize to the guy the next time I see him....

​This is something that's worth noting.  When an unusual play like this happens, coaches have every right in the world to ask questions about the ruling.  It is incumbent on us, as umpires, to explain our calls using rule book terminology.  "That's how it's played" is doing a disservice to this call, and I can see why a coach would get frustrated (of course, he is responsible for how he deals with that frustration).  If the umpire had used rule book terminology, I suspect the explanation would have been met with much less conflict:

"Coach, in my judgment, the first baseman was close enough to the ball for this to qualify as through or by him, and since no other fielder had a play on the ball, by rule, the runner has not committed an infraction."

The coach may ask what we are talking about when we say "through or by" which we can then explain.  Either way, speaking in these terms with confidence will likely give the coach the impression that we actually know what we are taking about, and judged the play and applied the rule correctly.

[Jimurray]

The other team had a runner from 1st going to 2nd.  

We had our IF in, in front of runners.  Hitter hits the ball, 1B makes attempt at ball - never touches the ball, (couldn't get to the ball) the ball then hits base runner.  They call the runner safe.

Said because fielder made an attempt at ball, the runner was safe.  Didn't matter if he could get to it or not, he made an attempt.  

Never heard or seen this.  - Always assumed the runner was out.  I have never found it in any rule book.  

Had an umpire at another field say they made the right call.  Still not sure of that one. 

Am I crazy or did they just make this up?

 

I'm assuming OBR. An attempt means nothing in regard to the rule but if the umpires judged that the ball went thru or by F3 then there is no intereference. The runner would be thinking that the ballwould be  stopped and he wouldn't have to avoid it. Otherwise, he needs to avoid a batted ball that wasn't touched by a fielder. 

[Mudder]

 

I'm assuming OBR. An attempt means nothing in regard to the rule but if the umpires judged that the ball went thru or by F3 then there is no intereference. The runner would be thinking that the ballwould be  stopped and he wouldn't have to avoid it. Otherwise, he needs to avoid a batted ball that wasn't touched by a fielder. 

OBR, not sure what you mean by "an attempt means nothing", I interpret an "attempt" to me mean the fielder attempted to field the batted ball, implying that he was close enough to the ball, he missed it (went through or by him), then the ball hit the runner, assuming no other fielder had a chance at it, this would not be interference

[Replacematt]

OBR, not sure what you mean by "an attempt means nothing", I interpret an "attempt" to me mean the fielder attempted to field the batted ball, implying that he was close enough to the ball, he missed it (went through or by him), then the ball hit the runner, assuming no other fielder had a chance at it, this would not be interference

​Whether the fielder attempted to field the ball has no bearing on if this is INT. Thus, if the calling umpires said it was nothing because the fielder attempted to field the ball, they are incorrect in their reasoning.

[Rich Ives]

In OBR, if the ball goes by a fielder other than a pitcher (defined as within a step and a reach,) and no other fielder has a play, there is no interference.

In FED, if the ball goes past a line connecting all the infielders and touches a runner, and no other fielder has a play, there is no interference.

Sounds like there was no interference in your case.

​OP said F3 didn't have a chance so it did not meet the step/reach so it IS interference.

[ElkOil]

They called it correctly.  The idea behind the rule is that if the ball gets past a fielder, the runner can't possibly interfere with their efforts because, well, the ball got past them.  It makes more sense than a blanket statement saying the runner is always out simply because the ball contacts him regardless of the circumstance.

Edited June 22, 2015 by ElkOil

[Mudder]

Maybe @MC should clarify how close F3 was to the batted ball when he "attempted" to field it, cause if he is nowhere near it the attempt means nothing, it would be IF, but  OP says fielders are playing in front of runner, F3 makes an attempt at the ball but could not reach it, I assumed the ball was "just" out of his reach, if so then the ball meets the standard of "going by him" ie: they've had their chance to field it.  Maybe the umps used the wrong wording, or did not explain the no IF properly, but it still sounds like no IF,  maybe @MC thought that anytime a batted ball hits a runner, he's out period  What am I missing?

[Replacematt]

​OP said F3 didn't have a chance so it did not meet the step/reach so it IS interference.

​If he got to within a step and a reach, it is NOT interference. He may have started three steps away and gotten to the point where he met the threshold.

[Omega194]

They got it right. No interference Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JaxRolo]

I agree they got it correct!

[maven]

First, I think "step and reach" applies to balls that have been muffed, but stay with the vicinity of the fielder -- see the play in the professional section along the first base line.  For balls that are not deflected, the ball must go through or immediately by the fielder.  That's closer than a "step and a reach".

 

Under OBR, start with the premise that a runner is always out if hit by a batted ball.

Then realize that this isn't fair to the offense, because if the runner reasonably thought the fielder was going to field the ball, the runner should be protected.  So, add the "through or by" exception.

Then realize that this isn't fair to the defense because if another fielder had an opportunity to field the ball, the runner should still be out.  So, add the "another fielder" exception to the exception.

 

For the OP, it's HTBT and judgment on "through or by."

​This.

That said, the call might have been right but for the wrong reason (the ball went through or by the fielder but the umpire explained the ruling incorrectly); or the call might have been right and for the right reason, though reported inaccurately here; or the call might have been wrong (the ball wasn't near enough to the fielder to have properly been "through or by," however the umpires justified it).

Without video, quibbling about judgment calls is pointless.

Also: with the infield in and the ball contacting the runner behind all infielders, this is NOT interference in FED: play the bounce (and umpires, PLEASE signal safe and verbalize "That's nothing!" so that everyone keeps playing).

[Rich Ives]

​If he got to within a step and a reach, it is NOT interference. He may have started three steps away and gotten to the point where he met the threshold.

​To me the OP description of  "never touches the ball, (couldn't get to the ball)" meant the ball was far enough away to NOT meet the "passed requirement.

[maven]

​To me the OP description of  "never touches the ball, (couldn't get to the ball)" meant the ball was far enough away to NOT meet the "passed requirement.

Please stop. Neither you nor Matt can tell whether a judgment call was right without video.

[maven]

Play 8: Runner on first base, first baseman positioned in front of the runner. Batter hits a ground ball just outside the reach of the first baseman as the first baseman dives to his right. The ball then strikes the runner. Ruling 8: In this play the ball is considered having passed by an infielder. The umpire must now judge if another infielder has the chance to make a play on the ball. If the umpire judges yes, then the runner is declared out. If the umpire judges no, the ball is alive and in play.

  (2014-08-11). PBUC Umpire Manual (Kindle Locations 2353-2357).  . Kindle Edition.

​That's helpful guidance. Thanks for posting.

[Guest]

Maybe @MC should clarify how close F3 was to the batted ball when he "attempted" to field it, cause if he is nowhere near it the attempt means nothing, it would be IF, but  OP says fielders are playing in front of runner, F3 makes an attempt at the ball but could not reach it, I assumed the ball was "just" out of his reach, if so then the ball meets the standard of "going by him" ie: they've had their chance to field it.  Maybe the umps used the wrong wording, or did not explain the no IF properly, but it still sounds like no IF,  maybe @MC thought that anytime a batted ball hits a runner, he's out period  What am I missing?

It was about a foot away after the dive, but the ball was a rocket, few people would get a glove on it.  The ball went past first baseman as he was making attempt and it hit runner. 

But from what everyone is saying I understand why the batter is out - or that he could have been called out.   

(Which I am fine with as long as it is explained well.)  My problem was with the weak explanation.  (The explanation was basically, that's how it's played....they couldn't give me any details - which made me more upset.  

One thing that bothered me, was basically the same exact thing happened to the two teams after us and it was called an out....

Thanks for all the help, I guess I need to apologize to the guy the next time I see him....

[Rich Ives]

Please stop. Neither you nor Matt can tell whether a judgment call was right without video.

​Thgus illustrating the problem being discussed.

[Dbellyflop]

It was about a foot away after the dive, but the ball was a rocket, few people would get a glove on it.  The ball went past first baseman as he was making attempt and it hit runner. 

But from what everyone is saying I understand why the batter is out - or that he could have been called out.   

(Which I am fine with as long as it is explained well.)  My problem was with the weak explanation.  (The explanation was basically, that's how it's played....they couldn't give me any details - which made me more upset.  

One thing that bothered me, was basically the same exact thing happened to the two teams after us and it was called an out....

Thanks for all the help, I guess I need to apologize to the guy the next time I see him....

​From the OP, looks like they called everyone safe, but from this quote looks like they called the batter out..... I hope not. Batter should not be called out unless the interference stopped a double play....

[Guest Joltin' Joe]

​This is something that's worth noting.  When an unusual play like this happens, coaches have every right in the world to ask questions about the ruling.  It is incumbent on us, as umpires, to explain our calls using rule book terminology.  "That's how it's played" is doing a disservice to this call, and I can see why a coach would get frustrated (of course, he is responsible for how he deals with that frustration).  If the umpire had used rule book terminology, I suspect the explanation would have been met with much less conflict

​Grayhawk -

Great point that we should use proper terminology as it can reduce the conflict.  Sometimes ....  Like you say how the coach handles it is his problem.  Just last weekend had the ol' hidden ball trick.  Pitcher slipped the ball to 2nd baseman.  Pitcher stepped onto mound and straddled the rubber.  They then tagged runner at 1st who had taken his lead.  Both my partner and I called the balk immediately at same time.  Coach ran out with his hair on fire.  My partner said "Coach, the pitcher cannot be on or astride of rubber without the ball."  Great explanation and coach still was mad.  He wanted the out to end the game.  He continued to argue and then later complained to Assignor.  It can help to explain it well but in the end it is up to coach on what he does.

 

[ZebraStripes]

​Grayhawk -

Great point that we should use proper terminology as it can reduce the conflict.  Sometimes ....  Like you say how the coach handles it is his problem.  Just last weekend had the ol' hidden ball trick.  Pitcher slipped the ball to 2nd baseman.  Pitcher stepped onto mound and straddled the rubber.  They then tagged runner at 1st who had taken his lead.  Both my partner and I called the balk immediately at same time.  Coach ran out with his hair on fire.  My partner said "Coach, the pitcher cannot be on or astride of rubber without the ball."  Great explanation and coach still was mad.  He wanted the out to end the game.  He continued to argue and then later complained to Assignor.  It can help to explain it well but in the end it is up to coach on what he does.

 

​Coaches learning their rules from the movie Rookie of the Year are not well versed in the rule.

[johnpatrick]

Under OBR, start with the premise that a runner is always out if hit by a batted ball.

 ​This is an important point.  In 20+ years I can't ever remember NOT calling a runner hit by a batted ball out.  The whole world thinks he's out.