Runner Interference

[Guest Coach]

1) Runner on 1st.  Defense is in a shift, with F4 playing a few feet toward third base and F6 in the usual spot.  F3 in usual spot,  holding runner on.   Bouncing grounder between 1b and 2b hits R1 on his way to second base.  Is this interference with no infielder in the area to make a play ?  Or does the ump have discretion here ?

 

2) No shift, bases loaded.   Grounder to F6 hits R2 on the way to third.  Clear interference is called.  Dead ball.  R2 is out, R3 sent back to third and R1 gets second and B/R gets first.  Aside from it being 'the rules', is there a non-arbitrary or 'fairness' kind of reason that one runner gets the next base (R1) but another does not (R3) ?   Or is this simply a practical remedy ?

[beerguy55]

8 minutes ago, Guest Coach said:

 

2) No shift, bases loaded.   Grounder to F6 hits R2 on the way to third.  Clear interference is called.  Dead ball.  R2 is out, R3 sent back to third and R1 gets second and B/R gets first.  Aside from it being 'the rules', is there a non-arbitrary or 'fairness' kind of reason that one runner gets the next base (R1) but another does not (R3) ?   Or is this simply a practical remedy ?

R1 gets the next base because the batter gets first - there's nothing (non)arbitrary or (un)fair about it - it's the only thing that can be done.   Technically, R1 does return to first, but then is forced to second by the batter.  R2 is out and the batter has to go somewhere - he's not out, and he doesn't re-hit.

He actually gets credited with a base hit.

 

If it was R1 who got hit, then R2 and R3 would simply return.  If it was R3, then R1 and R2 would have to move up a base to accommodate the batter going to first.

Edited July 3, 2019 by beerguy55
grammar

[johnpatrick]

7 minutes ago, Guest Coach said:

1) Runner on 1st.  Defense is in a shift, with F4 playing a few feet toward third base and F6 in the usual spot.  F3 in usual spot,  holding runner on.   Bouncing grounder between 1b and 2b hits R1 on his way to second base.  Is this interference with no infielder in the area to make a play ?  Or does the ump have discretion here ?

Under OBR rulesets the runner is obligated to not get hit by the batted ball.  There are exceptions, this wouldn't be one of them.  This would be interference.

[noumpere]

17 minutes ago, Guest Coach said:

2) No shift, bases loaded.   Grounder to F6 hits R2 on the way to third.  Clear interference is called.  Dead ball.  R2 is out, R3 sent back to third and R1 gets second and B/R gets first.  Aside from it being 'the rules', is there a non-arbitrary or 'fairness' kind of reason that one runner gets the next base (R1) but another does not (R3) ?   Or is this simply a practical remedy ?

As a general rule, and a starting point, you don't want any runners to advance if the offense violates.  But, you can't just have a runner disappear (exception that proves the rule:  some LL "poof rule" whan a runner leaves a base early).  So, the rule reads exactly that:  Runners return, unless forced.  In this play, that's R3 returns, but R1 advances.

[WilsonFlyer]

I'm confused. Maybe because the description isn't clear to me. In "1)," are we assuming the runner is behind F4? Based on what? "Playing a few feet towards third base?" In what direction? Apparently so?

[beerguy55]

1 minute ago, WilsonFlyer said:

I'm confused. Maybe because the description isn't clear to me. In "1)," are we assuming the runner is behind F4? Based on what? "Playing a few feet towards third base?" In what direction? Apparently so?

I don't think "behind" enters into it and doubt anyone is making any assumptions of any kind - I think the question is whether or not the fact the F4 has no play on the ball, being about 50-60 feet away, has any bearing on the call of R1 being hit by a batted ball.

In some codes it matters, in others it doesn't?

[noumpere]

3 minutes ago, WilsonFlyer said:

I'm confused. Maybe because the description isn't clear to me. In "1)," are we assuming the runner is behind F4? Based on what? "Playing a few feet towards third base?" In what direction? Apparently so?

It doesn't matter (in OBR).

 

Start with "a runner is out when hit with a (non-deflected) batted ball."  Period.

But -- that isn't fair to the runner if he thought a fielder should have *fielded* the ball and the runner got hit only because the fielder didn't, and the runner is directly behind the fielder.

But -- that isn't fair to the defense if *another* defender also behind the pair could have made a play -- maybe, for example the first fielder let it go baecuase the second fielder has a better arm, or is moving in the direction of the likely throw.

 

So, now we have the rule:  A runner is out..., except .... exception to the exception.

[Guest Coach]

Wilson...in my example, the second baseman is playing between second base and third base (shift).     F3 is straddling first base holding R1 on.   The batted, bouncing ball hits R1 as he advances to second base.  There is no infielder around to have even a remote chance of making a play on the ball.  I am asking if this is still interference.

[WilsonFlyer]

I can't envision why he's not out. Apparently I'm missing something in the interpretation but that's on me, not you guys. I fail to see any of the defined exceptions here the way I envision what you're calling a "shift." To me, a "shift" has always been a infielder moving left and right but continuing to follow the "diamond" that is directly behind or in front of the 90 degree basepath. To me, your description puts F4 behind 2B or just to the 3B side of 2B towards where the SS normally plays yet still behind the bag. 

The ball hit him. He's out. Dead ball. BR gets 1 and in your scenario, any other runner would return to TOP.

[Guest Coach]

I am not an umpire.  I am just asking if there's discretion in a case where clearly there is no defensive player in position to 'make a play.'     Aside from F1 and F2, defensive players can play anywhere in fair territory.   And, only one player can be 'protected' at a time.      Nompere suggests it's RI no matter what....which is fine. i was just asking.

[WilsonFlyer]

Well the other guys (I think) are saying he's not out, so my argument is with them. I can't figure out how they're rationalizing it based on one of the exceptions.

A good read.

http://umpirebible.com/index.php/rules-base-running/runner-touched-by-live-ball

[noumpere]

40 minutes ago, Guest Coach said:

I am not an umpire.  I am just asking if there's discretion in a case where clearly there is no defensive player in position to 'make a play.'     Aside from F1 and F2, defensive players can play anywhere in fair territory.   And, only one player can be 'protected' at a time.      Nompere suggests it's RI no matter what....which is fine. i was just asking.

The concept of "a protected fielder" comes into play when there's (potential) interference with *A PLAYER*.  This is contact with *THE BALL*.  No one need to be "protected" to have a runner out when the runner is contacted with the ball.

 

Note that FED has a "string theory" application ot this play --in general, run a string from F3-F4-F6-F5 and if the ball passes that string, AND there's no other fielder (infielder?) in position to make a play, the runner is not out.  The shift mentioned might affect the exact application of that interp

36 minutes ago, WilsonFlyer said:

Well the other guys (I think) are saying he's not out, so my argument is with them. I can't figure out how they're rationalizing it based on one of the exceptions.

 

I think you are mis-reading "the other guys" -- you are certainly misreading me.  The runner is out.

[beerguy55]

1 hour ago, WilsonFlyer said:

Well the other guys (I think) are saying he's not out, so my argument is with them. I can't figure out how they're rationalizing it based on one of the exceptions.

A good read.

http://umpirebible.com/index.php/rules-base-running/runner-touched-by-live-ball

What other guys?  Going into your first post only one other guy specifically answered number one, and he said the runner is out.  After that, one other guy said the runner is out.

One other guy (me) clarified the QUESTION but posited no opinion, and asked another question.  The OP was a question, not an opinion.

 

btw - in FED - (the runner is out when he) is contacted by a fair batted ball before it touches an infielder, or after it passes any infielder, except the pitcher, and the umpire is convinced that another infielder has a play

Would that mean in FED it could be determined that F4 had no play, provided this passed F3 who was holding R1, so not out??

And, many/most codes of softball... (the runner is out) When he is struck with an untouched fair-batted ball in fair territory while off base, and in the umpire's judgment, any fielder had an opportunity to make an out.  (this could be interpreted VERY broadly...like, the outfielder had an opportunity to throw a runner out somewhere)

 

Question - for OBR, how does the provision about "passing an infielder" come into play?  Wouldn't this have passed F3?

[WilsonFlyer]

I really gotta start reading closer around here. I thought 1 AND 2 were both referring to R1, thus the confusion in response to question 2. Sorry for MY confusion. I think I'll return to just reading instead of replying.

[johnpatrick]

2 hours ago, beerguy55 said:

Question - for OBR, how does the provision about "passing an infielder" come into play?  Wouldn't this have passed F3?

"Past in infielder" is a very narrow definition under OBR.  The correct term is through or by which means through the fielder's legs or within a dive.  Even that wouldn't apply if another fielder had a play on the ball.

[noumpere]

3 hours ago, beerguy55 said:

 

Question - for OBR, how does the provision about "passing an infielder" come into play?  Wouldn't this have passed F3?

See this from my previous post. 

         Start with "a runner is out when hit with a (non-deflected) batted ball."  Period.

         But -- that isn't fair to the runner if he thought a fielder should have *fielded* the ball and the runner got hit only because the fielder didn't, and the runner is directly behind the fielder.

        But -- that isn't fair to the defense if *another* defender also behind the pair could have made a play -- maybe, for example the first fielder let it go baecuase the second fielder has a better arm, or is moving in the direction of the likely throw.

 

The first exception is the passing part. Under the FED string theory you could well be correct.

[maven]

2 hours ago, noumpere said:

The first exception is the passing part. Under the FED string theory you could well be correct.

Unless all the infielders are playing in, FED should have an out here as well. The shift does not affect the ruling: it's not about "having a play," as some have posted.

Imagine this play: bases loaded, no outs. The batter hits a ground ball between 1B and 2B that no infielder will get to, and if it just goes through, at most 2 will score. But the ball hits R1 and caroms into the RF corner, where F9 has to chase it down. 

If that's not INT, at least 2 and maybe 3 will score, and the BR ends up on 2B or 3B. The defense has been hindered, even though no infielder "had a play" on the ball. Interference.

noumpere's method is how we teach it as well.

[Senor Azul]

Here’s what the 2013 Wendelstedt rules interpretation manual says about the runner from first base getting hit by a batted ball (section 9.3.5, pp. 178-179):

Generally, a runner leading off at first base will be called out whenever he is hit with a batted ball; even if it immediately passes through, or by, a diving first baseman. Though it is up to the judgment of the umpire, the second baseman is usually considered as still having an opportunity to field a batted ball unless he is playing in, or shifted up the middle (emphasis added)…

The term “by or through” refers to a ball that either goes through the fielder’s legs, or within his immediate vicinity. If the ball goes through or by a fielder, the runner is not out when the batted ball hits him, except if another fielder had an opportunity to field the ball.

[Mister B]

6 hours ago, maven said:

Imagine this play: bases loaded, no outs. The batter hits a ground ball between 1B and 2B that no infielder will get to, and if it just goes through, at most 2 will score. But the ball hits R1 and caroms into the RF corner, where F9 has to chase it down. 

What if the infield moves into the grass? 

[Richvee]

11 hours ago, maven said:

Imagine this play: bases loaded, no outs. The batter hits a ground ball between 1B and 2B that no infielder will get to, and if it just goes through, at most 2 will score. But the ball hits R1 and caroms into the RF corner, where F9 has to chase it down. 

 

4 hours ago, Mister B said:

What if the infield moves into the grass? 

INT in OBR.

FED, this is the string theory. It's past the infielders so no INT.