Baserunner Interference while standing on a base

[Guest DadDude]

I have never seen this situation before and would like to have a solid answer.  Baserunner is standing on third base when the batter hits a high popup on the left side right above third base.  The third baseman declares verbally while the ball is in the air that he can not see the ball.  No other player in the infield makes an attempt to catch the ball either.  The runner on third base stays on third base.  The ball comes down and hits the baserunner square on the back.  

I believe that this is offensive interference since the batted ball touched the baserunner before being touched by a defensive player. The runner standing on third should be out.  The umpire at the game said that since the runner was standing on the base, he was not out, that the ball was dead and that the batter received a hit.

What is the right call?

[noumpere]

The base is NOT a safe haven from being hit by a batted ball (unless it's an infield fly situation).

 

So, as described the runner should have been out and the batter awarded first.

[maven]

In general, you are correct: the base is not safe haven, and a runner struck by a fair batted ball when a fielder has a play is guilty of interference: the ball is dead, the runner is out, and other runners must return. In your play, with less than 2 outs, the batter-runner would be awarded 1B, and other runners would advance only if forced to advance by this award.

That said, there are a few ways this might NOT result in interference and an out. One would be if the ball were foul: if the ball contacts R3 over foul territory, then it's just a foul ball and not interference (unless R3 did something else to hinder a fielder). It's the position of the ball when touched, not the runner, that matters to this call. Another would be if this were a fair ball but an infield fly: in that case only, the base IS safe haven. The ball would be dead, the batter out for the infield fly, and play would continue with runners staying put.

[Stk004]

So say we change this to R3 only, less than 2 outs. Hard line drive down the line that strikes R3 while on the base. Unless F5 was playing in (so that he could have attempted a play and/or had the ball pass him), same result? R3 is out and BR goes to first?

[noumpere]

34 minutes ago, Stk004 said:

So say we change this to R3 only, less than 2 outs. Hard line drive down the line that strikes R3 while on the base. Unless F5 was playing in (so that he could have attempted a play and/or had the ball pass him), same result? R3 is out and BR goes to first?

line drive, pop up, grounder, hump-backed liner, .... it doesn't matter.  The rules, and the ruling, are the same.

[maven]

52 minutes ago, Stk004 said:

So say we change this to R3 only, less than 2 outs. Hard line drive down the line that strikes R3 while on the base. Unless F5 was playing in (so that he could have attempted a play and/or had the ball pass him), same result? R3 is out and BR goes to first?

We still need to know whether it's a fair ball.

Also, why is R3 standing on 3B for a hard line drive? If he has taken his normal lead in foul territory, the ball would be a foul ball when it hits him there.

[Stk004]

7 minutes ago, maven said:

We still need to know whether it's a fair ball.

Also, why is R3 standing on 3B for a hard line drive? If he has taken his normal lead in foul territory, the ball would be a foul ball when it hits him there.

For the purpose of the question let's assume it's fair. And that is a valid point, however it's the unexpected plays and situations we need to be prepared for. 

[HokieUmp]

From what I read of the post, I'm going to take a (semi) contrarian view.  To start - I get that IF there's interference, then what maven is said is spot on.  Having said that, here's what's making me stick my neck out: 

Quote

The third baseman declares verbally while the ball is in the air that he can not see the ball.  No other player in the infield makes an attempt to catch the ball either.

The way I read that, F5 is making that declaration, but not really moving around at all, trying to find it.  No other players come over to try, either.  So the runner, while not necessarily entitled by rule to stand his ground, hasn't interfered with the act of fielding.

I realize I'll get rebuttals that, obviously, F5 was circling around.  Maybe so.  But a) not from the description in the post, and b) we all know the levels we work at on this board.  My immediate mental picture of this is of an F5 rooted to the ground like a lightpole, just saying "can't see it!"  So, my gut reaction is that this is nothing, but mostly HTBT - unless you want to rule that the ball hadn't passed an infielder.

However, the umpire at the game gave a horseSH*# rationale, so he is awarded no stars.

[maven]

2 minutes ago, HokieUmp said:

The way I read that, F5 is making that declaration, but not really moving around at all, trying to find it.  No other players come over to try, either.  So the runner, while not necessarily entitled by rule to stand his ground, hasn't interfered with the act of fielding.

I get the worry: no hindrance = no INT.

But I think you're focused on the catch alone: F5 will need to field this (presumably fair) ball even if he doesn't catch it. When it bounces off R3 into LF and the BR gets a triple and RBI off it, I hope that you won't stick to your contrarian guns.

Apart from the question of whether R3 hindered the catch, he has clearly hindered F5's effort to field a batted ball. That's INT every time.

[HokieUmp]

1 minute ago, maven said:

I get the worry: no hindrance = no INT.

But I think you're focused on the catch alone: F5 will need to field this (presumably fair) ball even if he doesn't catch it. When it bounces off R3 into LF and the BR gets a triple and RBI off it, I hope that you won't stick to your contrarian guns.

Apart from the question of whether R3 hindered the catch, he has clearly hindered F5's effort to field a batted ball. That's INT every time.

When it bounces off R3, and we have a triple and an RBI, it STILL won't make the "top 10 strangest things I've seen on a field."

And I might still stick to my guns.  Here's my reasoning - and I'm prepared to admit I'm wrong, since this is all happening in head-space:  IF I didn't feel he was interfering with the catch, it's now as if the ball hit the base, or any other "allowed-to-hit" surface on the field, and it's on F5 to get the ball.  I guess I'm not continuing to consider it a batted ball at that point.  And again, I would still be considering F5's effort level.  It's probably because I've seen a lot of half-assing on the field lately, by players who seem either disinterested or demoralized (we've got some V and JV teams around here that spend the season getting their teeth kicked in), where I can seriously imagine it not dawning on F5 that he should be doing something.

But that's why I put in that extra phrase - "unless you want to rule that the ball hadn't passed an infielder."  I can see the out there.  It's one of the dopiest ways I'd see a runner get hit by a batted ball, but I can also see THAT happening in a game.  (Don't get me wrong - there's good baseball down here.  But there are times where being an umpire is like being the ringmaster of Barnum and Bailey.)

[noumpere]

46 minutes ago, HokieUmp said:

From what I read of the post, I'm going to take a (semi) contrarian view.  To start - I get that IF there's interference, then what maven is said is spot on.  Having said that, here's what's making me stick my neck out: 

The way I read that, F5 is making that declaration, but not really moving around at all, trying to find it.  No other players come over to try, either.  So the runner, while not necessarily entitled by rule to stand his ground, hasn't interfered with the act of fielding.

 

Even though it's listed under the INT rules, note that the OBR rule does NOT say anything like "interferes with the fielder's ability to field the ball by getting hit with the batted ball."

 

it just says "a fair ball touches him."  Period.  And, that's the starting point for the rule.  All the other exceptions (before being deflected; doesn't go immediately through or past a fielder) are there to protect the offense when they couldn't reasonably avoid.  And, the "unless another fielder has a play" is the exception to the exception to further protect the defense.

 

[Rich Ives]

1 hour ago, HokieUmp said:

From what I read of the post, I'm going to take a (semi) contrarian view.  To start - I get that IF there's interference, then what maven is said is spot on.  Having said that, here's what's making me stick my neck out: 

The way I read that, F5 is making that declaration, but not really moving around at all, trying to find it.  No other players come over to try, either.  So the runner, while not necessarily entitled by rule to stand his ground, hasn't interfered with the act of fielding.

I realize I'll get rebuttals that, obviously, F5 was circling around.  Maybe so.  But a) not from the description in the post, and b) we all know the levels we work at on this board.  My immediate mental picture of this is of an F5 rooted to the ground like a lightpole, just saying "can't see it!"  So, my gut reaction is that this is nothing, but mostly HTBT - unless you want to rule that the ball hadn't passed an infielder.

However, the umpire at the game gave a horseSH*# rationale, so he is awarded no stars.

Interfering with the ball and interfering with the fielder are two separate things and two different rules.  This thread is about interfering with the ball.

[HokieUmp]

17 minutes ago, noumpere said:

Even though it's listed under the INT rules, note that the OBR rule does NOT say anything like "interferes with the fielder's ability to field the ball by getting hit with the batted ball."

it just says "a fair ball touches him."  Period.  And, that's the starting point for the rule.  All the other exceptions (before being deflected; doesn't go immediately through or past a fielder) are there to protect the offense when they couldn't reasonably avoid.  And, the "unless another fielder has a play" is the exception to the exception to further protect the defense.

Right.  And I caveat-ed that in my original post, and via a follow-up.  Again, as Rich later pointed out, there are a couple interferences out there - fielder and ball.  I read this mostly as an issue with the fielder.  Everyone else thought of the ball first.  My bad.

As I told umpire_scott, "when it's you against the world, take the world plus the points."  I should have taken the points.