Where Should This Runner Be Placed? (Video)

[timelydew]

http://www.closecallsports.com/2017/09/case-play-2017-9-deflected-error-triple.html

I believe there is a case to be made for the runner being awarded home on this play. I mean, for chrissakes, he was around or near third when it happened? How do the umps place him at third here? Either the award should be second or home. They muffed this one.

If you scroll down to the comments, I agree with these:

 

cyclone14 • a day ago

I think this would be considered the a fair ball 'thrown' into the stands by an outfielder under 5.06b(G), and so the award should be 2 from the time of the throw. Since Hernandez had rounded second already, he should have been given home.

 

 

Nate Browell  cyclone14 • a day ago

 

Personally believe the spirit of the rule would be to award him home, assuming he Hernandez had achieved 2B. Technically this is deflected out, but in my judgment Trumbo's inability to control the ball a second time after intentionally corralling it seems to be similar to a fielder inadvertently kicking a motionless ball into the dugout.

2B or Home is the award. 3B only makes sense if (in error) they believed Hernandez had not yet achieved 2B when the ball entered the stands.

[beerguy55]

Discussed here:

 

 

24 minutes ago, timelydew said:

3B only makes sense if (in error) they believed Hernandez had not yet achieved 2B when the ball entered the stands

Or if (in error) they believed a fan had interfered.

[grayhawk]

The KEY here is to determine the status of the ball.  If Trumbo was in the process of fielding it when it went out of play, then it was still a batted ball and second base would be the proper award (2 bases TOP).  If Trumbo had secured the ball and then fumbled it out of play, then it's no longer a batted ball, but rather a thrown ball, which would be 2 bases from TOT.

There are only 2 possibilities to award third base here: (1) Fan interference, or (2) the umpires believed the BR had not yet touched second on a TOT award.  Neither of these would be correct on this play.

[timelydew]

2 minutes ago, beerguy55 said:

Discussed here:

 

 

Or if (in error) they believed a fan had interfered.

I should've looked closer, sorry. Glad to see you agree though.

I'm just left now wondering about the whole ball striking the top of the wall and being deflected out by a fielder question. On both boards I posted it to, no real definitive answer. Although I see you think it should count as a HR. Amazing that there's no text anywhere that supports or debunks it.

[beerguy55]

31 minutes ago, timelydew said:

I should've looked closer, sorry. Glad to see you agree though.

I'm just left now wondering about the whole ball striking the top of the wall and being deflected out by a fielder question. On both boards I posted it to, no real definitive answer. Although I see you think it should count as a HR. Amazing that there's no text anywhere that supports or debunks it.

I'm reconsidering my opinion on this, and I think, like @grayhawksays above, it should have been a double.

Going back to the home run question you asked in a different post, I believe the general consensus was that if a ball hit the FACE of the wall, came back and hit the fielder, and then went over the wall, it would be a double....not a home run (ball hit face of wall and is no longer in flight), and not a two base award from time of "throw" or time of contact.  Two bases from time of pitch.

That, to me, puts it in the same place as Trumbo's play, where the bounding ball hit the wall, came back, hit Trumbo, and then went out of play, without Trumbo ever having possession of it.

To be consistent, I think awarding two bases from time of pitch is the appropriate ruling.

If this were to be ruled two bases from time of contact, then we would also have to rule the ball of the face of the wall hitting the fielder and going over the wall from time of contact.

In principle, I think it could be "different" because there is a difference between the force of the bat (via deflection) and the force of the fielder (via redirection) causing the ball to exit the field of play, but in either case you have a simple reality to deal with...it was the fielder who caused the ball to go out of play.

 

This is different from the "top of the wall" discussion as the top of the wall has a special in flight/not in flight, in play/not in play status...."when they were up they were up, when they were down they were down, when they were only half way up they were neither up nor down."

This is also different from a ball hitting a fielder in flight and going over the wall being a home run - because a home run only requires a ball to be in flight when it goes over the wall...and a ball that hits a fielder is still in flight.

[timelydew]

37 minutes ago, beerguy55 said:

I'm reconsidering my opinion on this, and I think, like @grayhawksays above, it should have been a double.

Going back to the home run question you asked in a different post, I believe the general consensus was that if a ball hit the FACE of the wall, came back and hit the fielder, and then went over the wall, it would be a double....not a home run (ball hit face of wall and is no longer in flight), and not a two base award from time of "throw" or time of contact.  Two bases from time of pitch.

That, to me, puts it in the same place as Trumbo's play, where the bounding ball hit the wall, came back, hit Trumbo, and then went out of play, without Trumbo ever having possession of it.

To be consistent, I think awarding two bases from time of pitch is the appropriate ruling.

If this were to be ruled two bases from time of contact, then we would also have to rule the ball of the face of the wall hitting the fielder and going over the wall from time of contact.

In principle, I think it could be "different" because there is a difference between the force of the bat (via deflection) and the force of the fielder (via redirection) causing the ball to exit the field of play, but in either case you have a simple reality to deal with...it was the fielder who caused the ball to go out of play.

 

This is different from the "top of the wall" discussion as the top of the wall has a special in flight/not in flight, in play/not in play status...."when they were up they were up, when they were down they were down, when they were only half way up they were neither up nor down."

This is also different from a ball hitting a fielder in flight and going over the wall being a home run - because a home run only requires a ball to be in flight when it goes over the wall...and a ball that hits a fielder is still in flight.

Well said. I have no cause to disagree with you. So the hitting the top of the wall is then considered "in flight" when the ball hits it? I believe this is what Carl Childress determined back in 2001 in a post I referenced in that thread.

[timelydew]

1 hour ago, grayhawk said:

The KEY here is to determine the status of the ball.  If Trumbo was in the process of fielding it when it went out of play, then it was still a batted ball and second base would be the proper award (2 bases TOP).  If Trumbo had secured the ball and then fumbled it out of play, then it's no longer a batted ball, but rather a thrown ball, which would be 2 bases from TOT.

There are only 2 possibilities to award third base here: (1) Fan interference, or (2) the umpires believed the BR had not yet touched second on a TOT award.  Neither of these would be correct on this play.

Very concise and correct. Thanks. It's a judgment whether he's secured or controlled the ball here. You could rule either way and justify it. I am leaning toward two bases, TOP.