Ball Deflected by Fielder, Runner Allows it to Hit Him (OBR)

[timelydew]

Does this situation call for a double play (both runner and batter-runner out?)

[grayhawk]

27 minutes ago, timelydew said:

Does this situation call for a double play (both runner and batter-runner out?)

Only if the umpire judges that the runner "willfully and deliberately" interfered with the batted ball "with the obvious intent to break up a double play."

[timelydew]

28 minutes ago, grayhawk said:

Only if the umpire judges that the runner "willfully and deliberately" interfered with the batted ball "with the obvious intent to break up a double play."

 

"Ball Touched by Fielder, Runner Lets it Touch Him

If the umpire judges that a runner intentionally lets a deflected ball hit him in order to prevent another fielder from making a play on the ball, he shall be declared out and the ball becomes dead. In addition, the batter-runner will be declared out."

That's from the site where I discovered the rule. So... it's kind of right, then?

[grayhawk]

7 minutes ago, timelydew said:

 

"Ball Touched by Fielder, Runner Lets it Touch Him

If the umpire judges that a runner intentionally lets a deflected ball hit him in order to prevent another fielder from making a play on the ball, he shall be declared out and the ball becomes dead. In addition, the batter-runner will be declared out."

That's from the site where I discovered the rule. So... it's kind of right, then?

I don't know where that's from, but that makes it sound like the BR is out automatically, which is not the case.

[timelydew]

1 minute ago, grayhawk said:

I don't know where that's from, but that makes it sound like the BR is out automatically, which is not the case.

You're one helpful ump. Thank you.  I knew it sounded wrong in principle. I had a feeling it would require a double play.

[grayhawk]

46 minutes ago, timelydew said:

You're one helpful ump. Thank you.  I knew it sounded wrong in principle. I had a feeling it would require a double play.

Well, it requires obvious intent to break up a double play.  The ball is immediately dead when the ball strikes the runner, so anything that happens after that is moot.

[noumpere]

15 hours ago, timelydew said:

Does this situation call for a double play (both runner and batter-runner out?)

To expand on grayhawk's answers

A runner is protected from unintentional contact with a deflected ball. 

 

He's still liable for intentionally interfering, but:

1) "willful  indifference"  is still intent

2) interference usually (and specifically in this instance) requires a "play" (not necessarily in the sense used on balls thrown out of play, etc.) -- no play, no interference