Interference?

[FleasOf1000Camels]

Please help with rule cite or published interpretation.  Mild disagreement between me and my partner.

R1, with F3 holding the runner.  R1 is running on pitch, and is hit by hard ground ball about 30' off first base.  Ball was past F3 at time of contact, but NOT past F4.  I called INT and killed play.  Partner thinks I should have left it alone since F4 was breaking to 2nd on the cover and had no reasonable chance to make play on the ball.

[noumpere]

Under what rules code?

 

OBR:  Since the ball didn't go "through or immediately past" F3 (such that the runner might have some expectation of F3 fielding the ball), the runner is out.  He has an obligation to avoid being hit by the batted ball (with some exceptions).

FED:  Draw a line from F3 to F4 -- if the ball is past that line, then R1 is safe; otherwise R1 is out.

[ALStripes17]

Please help with rule cite or published interpretation.  Mild disagreement between me and my partner.

R1, with F3 holding the runner.  R1 is running on pitch, and is hit by hard ground ball about 30' off first base.  Ball was past F3 at time of contact, but NOT past F4.  I called INT and killed play.  Partner thinks I should have left it alone since F4 was breaking to 2nd on the cover and had no reasonable chance to make play on the ball.

FED uses the 'string theory' method of runners hit with batted balls after passing an infielder. At least that's what this forum has mentioned and used. Don't have official interp right now but connect the fielders with a string and that is supposed to be an indicator for whether or not there was a potential play to be made.

Hell, get the out for INT unless you feel the F4 had no chance to make a play. Judgement... It's why we get paid the big bucks

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[FleasOf1000Camels]

In hindsight, I wish I hadn't made the call...NOT because I think it may have been the WRONG call, but because it really was not really my call to make.  I was on the plate, and clearly saw the ball change direction after nicking the runner's back heel.  I took a quick peek at my partner, and when he made no call, I assumed it was only because he did not see it, so I made the call.

The play made no difference in the game (other than delaying the mercy rule by one batter), and nobody questioned the call.  It was only after the game when my partner told me he also had seen the contact, but judged that F4 did not have any reasonable chance to make the play.

I plead guilty to losing focus during a horrible ball game:(

 

[maven]

INT is anyone's call. If you had an angle, you can and should call it.

If F4 is not in front of the runner, we get INT in FED.

[ALStripes17]

In hindsight, I wish I hadn't made the call...NOT because I think it may have been the WRONG call, but because it really was not really my call to make.  I was on the plate, and clearly saw the ball change direction after nicking the runner's back heel.  I took a quick peek at my partner, and when he made no call, I assumed it was only because he did not see it, so I made the call.

The play made no difference in the game (other than delaying the mercy rule by one batter), and nobody questioned the call.  It was only after the game when my partner told me he also had seen the contact, but judged that F4 did not have any reasonable chance to make the play.

I plead guilty to losing focus during a horrible ball game:(

 

Then your partner did a terrible job of verbalizing 'that's nothing' and signaling 'safe'

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[maven]

1 hour ago, FleasOf1000Camels said:

It was only after the game when my partner told me he also had seen the contact, but judged that F4 did not have any reasonable chance to make the play.

So this was not a FED game? As others have said, the FED rule will have INT here, even if F4 does not have a "reasonable chance to make the play," provided only that the runner is in front of him.

If the game was played using a different code, I'd still be inclined to rule INT here: your partner seems to be applying a fairly high standard, such that the offense would get the benefit of the doubt. But because the offense has committed the infraction, we should give the defense any benefit of the doubt, and rule INT unless we are CERTAIN that no fielder had a play.

For me, that's going to make this call substantially the same as the FED ruling.

[HokieUmp]

38 minutes ago, maven said:

So this was not a FED game? As others have said, the FED rule will have INT here, even if F4 does not have a "reasonable chance to make the play," provided only that the runner is in front of him.

If the game was played using a different code, I'd still be inclined to rule INT here: your partner seems to be applying a fairly high standard, such that the offense would get the benefit of the doubt. But because the offense has committed the infraction, we should give the defense any benefit of the doubt, and rule INT unless we are CERTAIN that no fielder had a play.

For me, that's going to make this call substantially the same as the FED ruling.

I understand the "burden of proof" is on the offense here, but if, as stated and under OBR, F4 is breaking away from the play, and has no chance at it, I'm not sure I'd agree with you.  Now you're punishing the offense.  Yes, it's an infraction, but it seems to have had no effect on the play.

[ALStripes17]

I understand the "burden of proof" is on the offense here, but if, as stated and under OBR, F4 is breaking away from the play, and has no chance at it, I'm not sure I'd agree with you.  Now you're punishing the offense.  Yes, it's an infraction, but it seems to have had no effect on the play.

Punishing the offense? ... Don't get hit by the batted ball...

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[Ironhead17]

Runner hit by a batted ball well past F3 and not behind F4, is an out in my book.

[noumpere]

48 minutes ago, HokieUmp said:

  Yes, it's an infraction, but it seems to have had no effect on the play.

That's not really part of the standard, especially under OBR.

 

Heck, maybe R1 deflects the ball away from F9 such that R1 reaches third or scores, or BR reaches second.

[HokieUmp]

Understand, from the last two posts, that I'm kind of alone out here.  But I don't have the Power Point skills to diagram what *I* visualize as I'm talking this out. 

Again, in OBR, the rule says "the umpire must be convinced that the ball passed through, or by, the fielder, and that no other infielder had the chance to make a play on the ball."  And what I "see" in this play is that, with F4 breaking to 2B, he has no chance.  Therefore "that's nothing!" and we play.  Getting an out for interference there is punishing the offense.

[Rich Ives]

1 minute ago, HokieUmp said:

Understand, from the last two posts, that I'm kind of alone out here.  But I don't have the Power Point skills to diagram what *I* visualize as I'm talking this out. 

Again, in OBR, the rule says "the umpire must be convinced that the ball passed through, or by, the fielder, and that no other infielder had the chance to make a play on the ball."  And what I "see" in this play is that, with F4 breaking to 2B, he has no chance.  Therefore "that's nothing!" and we play.  Getting an out for interference there is punishing the offense.

This part didn't happen.  The "and" requires both parts to happen. OUT!

[noumpere]

2 minutes ago, HokieUmp said:

Understand, from the last two posts, that I'm kind of alone out here.  But I don't have the Power Point skills to diagram what *I* visualize as I'm talking this out. 

Again, in OBR, the rule says "the umpire must be convinced that the ball passed through, or by, the fielder, and that no other infielder had the chance to make a play on the ball."  And what I "see" in this play is that, with F4 breaking to 2B, he has no chance.  Therefore "that's nothing!" and we play.  Getting an out for interference there is punishing the offense.

It didn't meet this criterion.  "Through or by" means that the offense could reasonably assume the defense would field it, so the offense isn't punished when the defense doesn't and the ball hits the runner right behind the fielder before the runner has a chance to react.

[HokieUmp]

Okay, well, I'm going to disagree, given what's been written.  I DO understand what people are writing, but the OP said pretty clearly the ball had passed F3.  It also said that F4 was breaking away to cover 2B, and thus had no chance to field the ball.  So, how does it NOT meet the "through" criterion, noumpere?  (Also, who cares if he deflects the ball away from F9?  The rule says "no other infielder."  I wouldn't be protecting EVERY defensive player out there.)

I guess I'm just having trouble seeing it as described, so I'm just not.  Believe me, I'm not trying to re-write the rulebook.

[noumpere]

24 minutes ago, HokieUmp said:

Okay, well, I'm going to disagree, given what's been written.  I DO understand what people are writing, but the OP said pretty clearly the ball had passed F3.  It also said that F4 was breaking away to cover 2B, and thus had no chance to field the ball.  So, how does it NOT meet the "through" criterion, noumpere?  (Also, who cares if he deflects the ball away from F9?  The rule says "no other infielder."  I wouldn't be protecting EVERY defensive player out there.)

I guess I'm just having trouble seeing it as described, so I'm just not.  Believe me, I'm not trying to re-write the rulebook.

Read the rule as "through (the legs of) or (immediately) by (i.e., within arms' reach) AND no other fielder has a play (Note: BOTH criteria must be met for the runner to be safe)" 

[Richvee]

9 hours ago, HokieUmp said:

I understand the "burden of proof" is on the offense here, but if, as stated and under OBR, F4 is breaking away from the play, and has no chance at it, I'm not sure I'd agree with you.  Now you're punishing the offense.  Yes, it's an infraction, but it seems to have had no effect on the play.

MiLBUM

Runners on 1st and 2nd, both runners stealing. Batter shows bunt, the 1st and 3rd basemen move in, and the SS moves to cover 3rd. The batter swings at the last minute and hits a ground ball in the direction of the SS position. However, the SS has moved to cover 3rd base, and no one is in position to field the ball. The ground ball strikes the runner advancing from 2nd.

Ruling: The runner from 2nd is declared out for being struck by the batted ball. The BR is placed at 1st. The ball is not considered to have gone through or by an infielder in this play.

[HokieUmp]

Fine.  If you guys are going to keep using "rules" and "facts," bolstered by "interpretations," in a desperate attempt to prove you're right, then you win.

 

[Dbellyflop]

mlb Rule (new) 6.01

it is interference by a batter or a runner when:

(11) A fair ball touches him on fair territory before touching a fielder. (now the exception to protect the runner from a misplay by an infielder.)

if a fair ball goes through or by an infielder and touches a runner immediately back of him,  or touches the runner after having been deflected by a fielder, the umpire shall not declare the runner out.........

so basically just being touched by a fair batted ball is interference. doesn't matter if F4 is running away from the ball..

 

[HokieUmp]

So, actually, just to clarify this, since I guess I've always judged this differently in my mind (The last time I can remember having to kill a play for someone being hit by a batted ball, it was me.):

In the OP, the runner was being held on by F3.  The OP also stated pretty clearly that the ball passed F3.  But, because the ball was fairly wide of that F3, that doesn't then meet the criteria for passing an infielder?  Because it's not an in-the-vicinity play?

Also, then - it would be entirely possible for, say, an R2 get hit while going to third, with some weird infield shift on, so that we're calling the guy out, even though there's no fielder within 45 feet of the ball?  If that's the interpretation, that's cool, but how much Game Management would be required to wrangle THAT deal?

(I don't intend to appear dense, and I think I'm better on rules than this shows.  But I think this is certainly one rule in the rulebook that could be rewritten from its original 1888 (or whatever) wording, and let the rule match the interpretation.  Because the words definitely get in the way of this one.)

[noumpere]

All correct under OBR.  FED is different.

 

And, in my experience, everyone expects a runner to be out when he's hit by a bated ball, so there's not much game management needed.

[Richvee]

12 hours ago, HokieUmp said:

So, actually, just to clarify this, since I guess I've always judged this differently in my mind (The last time I can remember having to kill a play for someone being hit by a batted ball, it was me.):

In the OP, the runner was being held on by F3.  The OP also stated pretty clearly that the ball passed F3.  But, because the ball was fairly wide of that F3, that doesn't then meet the criteria for passing an infielder?  Because it's not an in-the-vicinity play?

Also, then - it would be entirely possible for, say, an R2 get hit while going to third, with some weird infield shift on, so that we're calling the guy out, even though there's no fielder within 45 feet of the ball?  If that's the interpretation, that's cool, but how much Game Management would be required to wrangle THAT deal?

(I don't intend to appear dense, and I think I'm better on rules than this shows.  But I think this is certainly one rule in the rulebook that could be rewritten from its original 1888 (or whatever) wording, and let the rule match the interpretation.  Because the words definitely get in the way of this one.)

Think of it this way for OBR. A runner is out when he's hit by a batted ball. Unless something happened to that batted ball prior to reaching that runner that could conceivably make the runner think the ball wouldn't hit him. (deflection, under the glove a fielder, etc.) Through a fielder with another infielder in position to make a play on the ball would be the exception.