Thru or by?

[stkjock]

 

"This same issue was discussed ever so briefly about 3 weeks ago in a thread titled Runner's INT in the Professional forum started by Mr. jpperez14. In his OP he posted a video of an MLB play very similar to this one and the runner was called out. I would post the link here but I don't know how. Please take a look at the video in the OP of that thread--it currently can be found on page 3 of the Professional forum."

 

In this example - the second baseman was behind the runner, in the OP he's in front, IMO (layman) that's the deciding factor.

 

copy and past the link from the address box for the thread:

 

or use the drop down in the vid to "share"

 

 

Edited August 11, 2015 by stkjock

[grayhawk]

This same issue was discussed ever so briefly about 3 weeks ago in a thread titled Runner's INT in the Professional forum started by Mr. jpperez14. In his OP he posted a video of an MLB play very similar to this one and the runner was called out. I would post the link here but I don't know how. Please take a look at the video in the OP of that thread--it currently can be found on page 3 of the Professional forum.

Similar plays, but different enough to have different rulings:

- In the MLB video, the ball was never "through or by" F3.  It passed him about 2-3 feet to the right.  Also, F4 was playing back and could have been deemed as having a play on the ball.

- In the LL video, the ball went directly under F3's glove, thereby establishing "through or by" and F4 was playing in and had absolutely no play on the ball.

 

[Rich Ives]

??????

See Sr Azul's post.

[Jimurray]

See Sr Azul's post.

Actually the Wendelstedt interp of this sit has a sample play. When infield is normal they have an out if in umpire judgement F4 had a play. When infield is in as in the OP the ball is live when it hits the runner. Sr. Azule should post the diagram illustrating this. Wendelstedt would rule a live ball in the OP. 

The real question is whether the calling umpire was aware of the rule. The conversation at the backstop does not inspire confidence. 

Edited August 12, 2015 by Jimurray
Changed fielder to runner

[basejester]

I hate these rules.  How much different would it be to say, "The batter is out when struck by a batted ball in fair territory unless it has been touched by a fielder" and "When the ball is thrown out of play, each runner advances two bases from the time of the throw"?  That would eliminate 10 pages of subtle interpretations.  Sometimes SH*# happens.  The urge to fix all injustices for unusual cases is misguided.

 

It's too complicated.

 

 

 

[Senor Azul]

Mr. Jimurraye, perhaps if I had a scanner and knew how to use one I would post that diagram you refer to that is on page 179 of the WUM. It sounds as if you have the manual so might you have a scanner? 

As for what Mr. Wendelstedt might say, I don't think you can put words in his mouth. But you can quote him from the very same page you refer to:

Generally, a runner leading off at first base will be called out whenever he is hit with a batted ball; even if it immediately passes through, or by, a diving first baseman. Though it is up to the judgment of the umpire, the second baseman is usually considered as still having an opportunity to field a batted ball unless he is playing in, or shifted up the middle. 

My take on this quote is that the most important aspect of the ruling is whether the second baseman is deeper than the runner when he is hit--not the "through or by" part. I think MLB wants an out on this violation with as few exceptions as possible. And apparently our Member's Member, Mr. maven, thinks so also. He said in the previous interference thread in the Professional forum:

Easy runner INT call in OBR.

In OBR, a runner is guilty of INT when he is hit by a batted ball. That's the basic rule: a runner who gets hit is out.

The exception occurs when a runner might reasonably expect a fielder to field a batted ball: that is, when it's hit basically right to the fielder, and the runner is directly behind him. In that case, if the fielder fails to field the ball and it hits the runner, there is no INT; the ball is live, play the bounce.

 

[Jimurray]

Mr. Jimurraye, perhaps if I had a scanner and knew how to use one I would post that diagram you refer to that is on page 179 of the WUM. It sounds as if you have the manual so might you have a scanner? 

As for what Mr. Wendelstedt might say, I don't think you can put words in his mouth. But you can quote him from the very same page you refer to:

Generally, a runner leading off at first base will be called out whenever he is hit with a batted ball; even if it immediately passes through, or by, a diving first baseman. Though it is up to the judgment of the umpire, the second baseman is usually considered as still having an opportunity to field a batted ball unless he is playing in, or shifted up the middle. 

My take on this quote is that the most important aspect of the ruling is whether the second baseman is deeper than the runner when he is hit--not the "through or by" part. I think MLB wants an out on this violation with as few exceptions as possible. And apparently our Member's Member, Mr. maven, thinks so also. He said in the previous interference thread in the Professional forum:

 

Easy runner INT call in OBR.

 

In OBR, a runner is guilty of INT when he is hit by a batted ball. That's the basic rule: a runner who gets hit is out.

 

The exception occurs when a runner might reasonably expect a fielder to field a batted ball: that is, when it's hit basically right to the fielder, and the runner is directly behind him. In that case, if the fielder fails to field the ball and it hits the runner, there is no INT; the ball is live, play the bounce.

 

 

 

 

I think the sample play tells you how Wendelstedt would call it. 

[grayhawk]

P383(a) in the screen shot above is identical to the play you posted in the OP.  The ball is alive and in play.

[Jimurray]

I hate these rules.  How much different would it be to say, "The batter is out when struck by a batted ball in fair territory unless it has been touched by a fielder" and "When the ball is thrown out of play, each runner advances two bases from the time of the throw"?  That would eliminate 10 pages of subtle interpretations.  Sometimes SH*# happens.  The urge to fix all injustices for unusual cases is misguided.

 

It's too complicated.

 

 

 

Would you prefer the FED rule?