tailor made double play ball hits baserunner

[Guest Guest]

Runners 1st and 2nd, 0 out. FED rules

Tailor made DP ball hit to F6. Ball hits runner going from 2nd to 3rd. He did NOT get hit intentionally. I want to get two outs here because I feel like the offense shouldnt benefit from getting hit by the ball, but I cant find any rule to support it. The closest I can find is 8-4-g but I feel like that is kind of unclear if it applies to this situation. 

 

[scrounge]

Let's not overthink this.....runner is out, place the batter on first.

[noumpere]

I think the rule you want in 8-4-2k (not g).

 

And, if you feel the need to get two outs, use 8.4.2 Comment.  But, please don't.

[James88]

If an umpire judges interference to have prevented an obvious double play, why would he not invoke the rule?

 

[maven]

16 minutes ago, James88 said:

If an umpire judges interference to have prevented an obvious double play, why would he not invoke the rule?

 

It depends on how uncomfortable he wants to be for the rest of the game.

[James88]

If it's an obvious double play ball like the OP said, one team or the other is gonna make you uncomfortable.  Might as well be able to back your ruling with the rule book (or Case Book).

[BCBrad]

3 hours ago, Guest Guest said:

Runners 1st and 2nd, 0 out. FED rules

Tailor made DP ball hit to F6. Ball hits runner going from 2nd to 3rd. He did NOT get hit intentionally. I want to get two outs here because I feel like the offense shouldnt benefit from getting hit by the ball, but I cant find any rule to support it. The closest I can find is 8-4-g but I feel like that is kind of unclear if it applies to this situation. 

 

There is the key word; there is nothing willful or deliberate. I don't think the offence is benefiting; they are in the same situation with one out. You don't know they would have turned two.

R2 out. Int. runners on 2nd and 1st. 

[Guest Guest Guest]

It was a tailor made DP ball that would be fully expected to be a double play with both runners being out by two steps or more. I certainly disagree that there is no benefit to the offense. I have no doubt in my mind that common sense and "advantage/disadvantage" dictates that a double play should be the call here. But I dont want to be making up rules nor am I on the field to prove to everyone how deep I can dig in the rulebook. 

I'm surprised there does not seem to be a clear cut answer to the question. If a DP cannot be called here, smart MLB runners should be getting hit by the ball in this scenario (while of course not making it obvious that they were doing it on purpose)

[ALStripes17]

It was a tailor made DP ball that would be fully expected to be a double play with both runners being out by two steps or more. I certainly disagree that there is no benefit to the offense. I have no doubt in my mind that common sense and "advantage/disadvantage" dictates that a double play should be the call here. But I dont want to be making up rules nor am I on the field to prove to everyone how deep I can dig in the rulebook. 

I'm surprised there does not seem to be a clear cut answer to the question. If a DP cannot be called here, smart MLB runners should be getting hit by the ball in this scenario (while of course not making it obvious that they were doing it on purpose)

MLB umpires (and players) are smarter than that. Yes in FED we can call a DP if it is obvious but in HS I don't know of any DP that is obvious. You can't go wrong using OBR and NCAA standards of proof here before getting 2 outs.

Use 'intent' as your standard for 'obvious'

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[noumpere]

38 minutes ago, Guest Guest Guest said:

 

I'm surprised there does not seem to be a clear cut answer to the question. If a DP cannot be called here, smart MLB runners should be getting hit by the ball in this scenario (while of course not making it obvious that they were doing it on purpose)

The pro rule is different, but the result is the same.

 

In the pro rule -- you have to "willfully and deliberately" be hit to prevent an obvious DP.  That never happens.

In HS, DPs where the runner gets hit are (usually) not that obvious.

[maven]

1 hour ago, Guest Guest Guest said:

I'm surprised there does not seem to be a clear cut answer to the question. If a DP cannot be called here, smart MLB runners should be getting hit by the ball in this scenario (while of course not making it obvious that they were doing it on purpose)

There is a clear cut answer to the question: you just seem not to like it.

Except at the highest levels of HS baseball, there is no such thing as a "routine" double play. They can turn anything into an adventure.

[bam]

If there's no such thing as a routine DP, why do we get 2 on a FPSR?  

[noumpere]

10 minutes ago, bam said:

If there's no such thing as a routine DP, why do we get 2 on a FPSR?  

1) to further emphasize the safety aspect of the rule

2) because R1 is already out (well, most of the time) by the time he violates.

 

Note that the rules does NOT include any phrase like "if a double play is possible...."  In fact, some of the cases (or maybe even the rule, I didn't check) even say "if doesn't matter if a double play is possible -- get two outs."

[BretMan]

2 hours ago, Guest Guest Guest said:

It was a tailor made DP ball that would be fully expected to be a double play with both runners being out by two steps or more....

IF...The shortstop cleanly fielded the ball, then made a good throw to second that beat the runner, then the second baseman cleanly received the ball, successfully pivoted, made another good throw that would beat the other runner, and the first baseman snagged it in time.

In other words, a double play was possible, but it's not automatic. Save this "second out" call for when a second out is actually in the process of being executed, not before it's even been started, or for when the outcome is a little bit more certain. For instance, if the first out has already been made and the second one is in the process of being made.

Don't guess that a half-dozen other things that need to happen will happen, before the first thing (fielding the batted ball) has even happened yet!

[scrounge]

48 minutes ago, bam said:

If there's no such thing as a routine DP, why do we get 2 on a FPSR?  

As @noumpere said, it's a specified penalty for violation of a safety rule. The Fed powers that be have judged this FPSR violation (rightly, IMO) as so important that it explicitly differs from the other interference rules and requires the 2nd out as the penalty.

[ALStripes17]

If there's no such thing as a routine DP, why do we get 2 on a FPSR?  

Because FPSR specifically prescribes INT runner out in addition to the BR being out.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[Welpe]

2 hours ago, noumpere said:

1) to further emphasize the safety aspect of the rule

2) because R1 is already out (well, most of the time) by the time he violates.

 

Note that the rules does NOT include any phrase like "if a double play is possible...."  In fact, some of the cases (or maybe even the rule, I didn't check) even say "if doesn't matter if a double play is possible -- get two outs."

Exactly. The 2nd out in the FPSR penalty is intended to be punitive.

[James88]

"prevented a possible double play, B2 also would be called out"

'B3 may also be out if the interference prevented a double play"

"in the umpire’s opinion, the interference prevented a double play."

"If it is apparent F6 was about to tag R2 and also would retire B3 at first for a double play,"

"If the umpire rules that F4 could have executed a double play,"

"R1 is hit by a batted ball that prevents an obvious double play on him"

 

These are all taken directly from the Case Book.  Possible, opinion, apparent, could have, obvious.  We can have differing opinions on WHEN or IF we should grab a second out, but NFHS rules absolutely allow umpire judgment to determine if we declare the second out.  

[ALStripes17]

"prevented a possible double play, B2 also would be called out"

'B3 may also be out if the interference prevented a double play"

"in the umpire’s opinion, the interference prevented a double play."

"If it is apparent F6 was about to tag R2 and also would retire B3 at first for a double play,"

"If the umpire rules that F4 could have executed a double play,"

"R1 is hit by a batted ball that prevents an obvious double play on him"

 

These are all taken directly from the Case Book.  Possible, opinion, apparent, could have, obvious.  We can have differing opinions on WHEN or IF we should grab a second out, but NFHS rules absolutely allow umpire judgment to determine if we declare the second out.  

Umpire judgement... Nailed it.

Also note that many of the responses to your OP are made by some of the most academic umpires in the nation. These guys pour there hearts and souls into deciphering rules/cases/interpretations for the 85+ different levels and rule books of baseball... And are extremely good at what they do. The quotes you provide are excellent; however, interpretations suggest otherwise in terms of practical application and game management.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[JonnyCat]

Do you have rule book support for getting a second out? Yes, you do. Should you, no.

I would never tell anyone how to umpire, if getting 2 outs in this situation works for you, then go right ahead. You do have rule book support, but I think it is picking up the dirty end of the stick. I think the better way to rule is as others have suggested. Get the one out, and place the runners accordingly.

FWIW, there are 3 people on this site that I would recommend people listen to when regarding FED rules. Maven, Noumpere, and Grayhawk. They are very knowledgeable, give sound advice, and I've never read any of their posts as condescending or mean spirited.

[ZebraStripes]

8 hours ago, Guest Guest Guest said:

It was a tailor made DP ball that would be fully expected to be a double play with both runners being out by two steps or more. I certainly disagree that there is no benefit to the offense. I have no doubt in my mind that common sense and "advantage/disadvantage" dictates that a double play should be the call here. But I dont want to be making up rules nor am I on the field to prove to everyone how deep I can dig in the rulebook. 

I'm surprised there does not seem to be a clear cut answer to the question. If a DP cannot be called here, smart MLB runners should be getting hit by the ball in this scenario (while of course not making it obvious that they were doing it on purpose)

You make lots of assumptions.  I have seen so many "double plays" not even get the front end of the twin killing as the ball is thrown into the outfield.  

 

Scorekeepers rule, you can not assume a double play.  

[James88]

16 hours ago, ALStripes17 said:

 

 

Umpire judgement... Nailed it.

 

Also note that many of the responses to your OP are made by some of the most academic umpires in the nation. These guys pour there hearts and souls into deciphering rules/cases/interpretations for the 85+ different levels and rule books of baseball... And are extremely good at what they do. The quotes you provide are excellent; however, interpretations suggest otherwise in terms of practical application and game management.

 

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

No argument here about anything in your post.  The original poster wanted to know if there was a basis in the NFHS Rule Book and/or Case Book to support him grabbing the second.  The answer is yes there is.  When people have differing opinions on something, you always revert to the orginal rule or text to come up with the answer. 

However, I absolutely agree with what you said on "practical application and game management".  Very nice way of putting it and sound advice.

Thanks.

 

[Guest Guest (OP)]

Just wanted to thank you guys for the quality discussion to my OP. I am sure I will make this call again at some point if I umpire long enough, but I will take the advice given and just call the one out in all but the most extremely obvious spots where its a hard hit ball up the middle and a middle infielder is right in front of it waiting to field it. 

Thanks again