Jump to content
  • 0

Runner hit by deflected ball


Guest Mike T
Umpire-Empire locks topics which have not been active in the last year. The thread you are viewing hasn't been active in 2484 days so you will not be able to post. We do recommend you starting a new topic to find out what's new in the world of umpiring.

Question

Guest Mike T

Runner on second base, ball hit up the middle and deflects off the pitchers leg towards third base. The runner off second hits the ball while the third baseman is trying to make a play. Umpire on the field calls the runner out, but on review they let the runner stay on third and the batter advanced to second base in the confusion. Whats the right call?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Answers 11
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters For This Question

Top Posters For This Question

Posted Images

11 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0
22 minutes ago, Guest Mike T said:

Runner on second base, ball hit up the middle and deflects off the pitchers leg towards third base. The runner off second hits the ball while the third baseman is trying to make a play. Umpire on the field calls the runner out, but on review they let the runner stay on third and the batter advanced to second base in the confusion. Whats the right call?

Yes.  Being hit by a deflected batted ball is not interference. Play on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
1 hour ago, Gfoley4 said:

? The first sentence seems pretty applicable to the situation at hand. 

That's right: the runner is not guilty of INT with the ball when it contacts him after deflecting off a fielder.

I suspect that Ives was responding to the bolded part of your quotation, which concerns INT with a fielder: a fielder who is fielding a deflected ball (F5 here) is still protected, and the runner must avoid him (which he did). He probably thought that you were emphasizing that passage, which he is correct is not applicable here.

When you post a long passage, it's advisable to gloss it to call attention to the passage you regard as governing for the case at hand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
8 hours ago, Rich Ives said:

Where does it say that?  It says the umpire called R2 out - no more. Doesn't same time was called. Doesn't say the umpire yelled "interference".

As there was no play on R2, presumably the out was called for INT. Even if the umpire did not call time or yell "interference," the INT makes the ball dead, not the call. Even if he rules INT after processing it for a moment, the ball will be dead by rule at the moment of the INT, not when the umpire makes up his mind.

This is situation where a changed call put a team at a disadvantage: had the umpire promptly announced "That's nothing!" the defense could have played on the BR advancing to 2B. As the BR probably had not acquired 1B when the "INT" occurred, I'd put him back at 1B, and leave R2 at 3B.

Then everyone's equally unhappy: the defense loses their out for INT, and the offense loses their extra base for the BR. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
8 hours ago, Rich Ives said:

Where does it say that?  It says the umpire called R2 out - no more. Doesn't same time was called. Doesn't say the umpire yelled "interference". 

Then it says on review they "unouted" R2. As they should.

If the batter advanced to 2B in the "confusion" I would think at least the defense didn't "play on".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
1 hour ago, Jimurray said:

This is reference only here because of the strange behavior of the forum software.

3 hours ago, Gfoley4 said:

? The first sentence seems pretty applicable to the situation at hand. 

It says the ball hit the runner while the fielder was making a play. Where does it say the runner interfered with the fielder? The outcome indicates there was no interference with the fielder either or R2 would still be out,

Link to comment
Share on other sites


×
×
  • Create New...