question about runner struck by a batted ball

[Guest Professor Ripster]

Hello, watching a recent play involving a St. Louis Cardinals baserunner not being called out after being hit by a batted ball led to a friendly disagreement between me and a few of my coworkers.

We understand that a baserunner is out if he is struck by a batted ball.

We also understand that he is NOT out if the batted ball that strikes him was first misplayed by a fielder who was in front of the basepath and THEN the ball hit him.

This is an exception to the basic rule and is well explained within the rule book.  No argument so far.

But my colleagues claim there is an exception to the exception if another player behind the baserunner could have made a play, in which case the baserunner should be declared out after all.

Let me describe a scenario for this case:

Runner on second.  Third baseman is playing in and way off the line.  Shortstop is deep and swung around into the "5.5 hole."  Batter hits a grounder to the left side.  The third baseman reaches down but it goes under his glove and hits the baserunner passing by a few feet behind him.  Meanwhile, behind both of them the shortstop was circling to the ball and would likely have scooped it up with a possible play at first had the ball not hit the runner.

My friends say that the presence of another fielder (the shortstop in this example) with a chance to make a play on the ball dictates that the runner is to be called out after all and the exception of the third baseman having first made a play (misplay) before the runner was struck does not apply.

I maintain that the second fielder behind the baserunner is irrelevant.  If a batted ball passes by a fielder before striking a baserunner, the baserunner is NOT out (assuming the contact between the ball and the baserunner was inadvertent/unintentional), and it doesn't matter whether or not any other players are positioned behind that point nor whether or not they had the chance to make any play on the ball.

My coworkers' position on this seems loosely and indirectly supported by wording in a rule regarding when the call is to be called dead (but not in the rule regarding when the runner is to be called out).

My position is based on the absence of any language describing this situation and no mention of it in any section listing the ways a baserunner or batter or batter/runner can be declared out.

I hope my question is clear.

So, who is right?  And importantly, where is the rule or combination of rules that make it so?

Thank you!!

[Guest Professor Ripster]

Sorry, need to fix a typo in my question:

"My coworkers' position on this seems loosely and indirectly supported by wording in a rule regarding when the call ball is to be called dead (but not in the rule regarding when the runner is to be called out)."

[Jimurray]

46 minutes ago, Guest Professor Ripster said:

Sorry, need to fix a typo in my question:

"My coworkers' position on this seems loosely and indirectly supported by wording in a rule regarding when the call ball is to be called dead (but not in the rule regarding when the runner is to be called out)."

Your coworkers are correct in OBR. Even though MLB reworded the rule this year regarding when a runner will be out there still is some confusion. But the Major League Baseball Umpire Manual has made it clear for a few years:

Here is what the 2017 MLBUM says when referring to a runner being hit by a batted ball:
"TO SUMMARIZE:
A runner is always out when struck by a batted ball (unintentional on the part of the runner) unless:
(1) The ball has been touched by an infielder; or
(2) The ball has passed through or by an infielder AND no other infielder has a chance to make a play on the ball."
The MLBUM also specifies that "by" means immediately by an infielder making a play on the ball. 

With infielders playing normal the Wendelstedt Umpire School will not protect R1, being hit by a ball thru or by F3, since a professional F4 will be considered to be able to make a play on that ball. 

Also the rule that makes the ball dead for interference also has a penalty that calls the runner out and returns runners TOI. 

[johnpatrick]

You owe beers!!

[stkjock]

Long discussion here

 

 

[Richvee]

Something you need to be clear on in your play. 

If the ball goes by F5 , hits R2, and F6 has a chance to field the ball, this is INT. 

HOWEVER....... 

If the ball was touched/deflected by F5 and then hit R2 there is no INT. ( the runner  still can not interfere with F6 trying to make a play on the deflected ball.) 

[Guest Professor Ripster]

Thank you everyone!  Clearly I didn't know this rule and my coworkers did.  Good thing I'm not an umpire except when yelling at the television.  :-)

The wording quoted by Jimurray makes it pretty obvious but I didn't see that wording anywhere when I looked at the MLB rulebook online.

BTW, the Yadier Molina play referenced by stkjock is in fact the one which sparked the whole discussion with my coworkers, but the hypothetical play/rule we were arguing about and that I asked here is obviously different from that one.  (And yes, Richvee, I am also assuming that the fielder who the ball went past did not touch it.)

Incidentally, in the Molina play I believe they got the call right, sort of.  I think the only thing that was wrong was the home plate umpire throwing up his hands and calling time prematurely.  Luckily for him and the crew, Molina's actions, the defense's subsequent actions, and the relative proximity of the ball to the defender and the rest of the action caused the entire play to stop somewhat normally, as it likely would have if the umpire had not stopped the action by calling time.  As far as who was(n't) called out and where the runners ended up, I think in the end everything ended up as it should have, and I don't think it was even that controversial in the end.

Two last questions, now that I know the provision about another fielder having a play: 

1. Does this hold true if the second fielder is an outfielder (using my example, a very, very shallow LF instead of the SS)?

2. Does "make a play on the ball" mean simply to field it, or does it mean a play where a likely out can be made?

Thanks again!

[Biscuit]

6 hours ago, Guest Professor Ripster said:

Thank you everyone!  Clearly I didn't know this rule and my coworkers did.  Good thing I'm not an umpire except when yelling at the television.  :-)

The wording quoted by Jimurray makes it pretty obvious but I didn't see that wording anywhere when I looked at the MLB rulebook online.

BTW, the Yadier Molina play referenced by stkjock is in fact the one which sparked the whole discussion with my coworkers, but the hypothetical play/rule we were arguing about and that I asked here is obviously different from that one.  (And yes, Richvee, I am also assuming that the fielder who the ball went past did not touch it.)

Incidentally, in the Molina play I believe they got the call right, sort of.  I think the only thing that was wrong was the home plate umpire throwing up his hands and calling time prematurely.  Luckily for him and the crew, Molina's actions, the defense's subsequent actions, and the relative proximity of the ball to the defender and the rest of the action caused the entire play to stop somewhat normally, as it likely would have if the umpire had not stopped the action by calling time.  As far as who was(n't) called out and where the runners ended up, I think in the end everything ended up as it should have, and I don't think it was even that controversial in the end.

Two last questions, now that I know the provision about another fielder having a play: 

1. Does this hold true if the second fielder is an outfielder (using my example, a very, very shallow LF instead of the SS)?

2. Does "make a play on the ball" mean simply to field it, or does it mean a play where a likely out can be made?

Thanks again!

In the Molina play, the home plate umpire (Greg Gibson if memory serves) actually apologized to Ned Yost for killing the ball, after the play ended. 

[stkjock]

14 minutes ago, Biscuit said:

In the Molina play, the home plate umpire (Greg Gibson if memory serves) actually apologized to Ned Yost for killing the ball, after the play ended. 

your memory served you well

[Replacematt]

7 hours ago, Guest Professor Ripster said:

Thank you everyone!  Clearly I didn't know this rule and my coworkers did.  Good thing I'm not an umpire except when yelling at the television.  :-)

The wording quoted by Jimurray makes it pretty obvious but I didn't see that wording anywhere when I looked at the MLB rulebook online.

BTW, the Yadier Molina play referenced by stkjock is in fact the one which sparked the whole discussion with my coworkers, but the hypothetical play/rule we were arguing about and that I asked here is obviously different from that one.  (And yes, Richvee, I am also assuming that the fielder who the ball went past did not touch it.)

Incidentally, in the Molina play I believe they got the call right, sort of.  I think the only thing that was wrong was the home plate umpire throwing up his hands and calling time prematurely.  Luckily for him and the crew, Molina's actions, the defense's subsequent actions, and the relative proximity of the ball to the defender and the rest of the action caused the entire play to stop somewhat normally, as it likely would have if the umpire had not stopped the action by calling time.  As far as who was(n't) called out and where the runners ended up, I think in the end everything ended up as it should have, and I don't think it was even that controversial in the end.

Two last questions, now that I know the provision about another fielder having a play: 

1. Does this hold true if the second fielder is an outfielder (using my example, a very, very shallow LF instead of the SS)?

2. Does "make a play on the ball" mean simply to field it, or does it mean a play where a likely out can be made?

Thanks again!

For not being an umpire, you seem to grasp the implicit concepts and understand the proper verbiage quite well.

[Jimurray]

8 hours ago, Guest Professor Ripster said:

Thank you everyone!  Clearly I didn't know this rule and my coworkers did.  Good thing I'm not an umpire except when yelling at the television.  :-)

The wording quoted by Jimurray makes it pretty obvious but I didn't see that wording anywhere when I looked at the MLB rulebook online.

BTW, the Yadier Molina play referenced by stkjock is in fact the one which sparked the whole discussion with my coworkers, but the hypothetical play/rule we were arguing about and that I asked here is obviously different from that one.  (And yes, Richvee, I am also assuming that the fielder who the ball went past did not touch it.)

Incidentally, in the Molina play I believe they got the call right, sort of.  I think the only thing that was wrong was the home plate umpire throwing up his hands and calling time prematurely.  Luckily for him and the crew, Molina's actions, the defense's subsequent actions, and the relative proximity of the ball to the defender and the rest of the action caused the entire play to stop somewhat normally, as it likely would have if the umpire had not stopped the action by calling time.  As far as who was(n't) called out and where the runners ended up, I think in the end everything ended up as it should have, and I don't think it was even that controversial in the end.

Two last questions, now that I know the provision about another fielder having a play: 

1. Does this hold true if the second fielder is an outfielder (using my example, a very, very shallow LF instead of the SS)?

2. Does "make a play on the ball" mean simply to field it, or does it mean a play where a likely out can be made?

Thanks again!

1. The rule specifies infielders. There can be a debate about who is an infielder but I'm limiting it to the four positions in the "thru or by case".

2. The MLBUM bolds "making a play on the ball". The umpire needs to judge if another infielder has a chance to make a play on the ball. You may not be as strict as the Wendelstedt School in your judgement as to, for example, F4's ability to play on a ball hit directly to F3 that he misses.

[yawetag]

1 hour ago, Jimurray said:

1. The rule specifies infielders. There can be a debate about who is an infielder but I'm limiting it to the four positions in the "thru or by case".

MLB is specifically clear on who is an "infielder" : An INFIELDER is a fielder who occupies a position in the infield.

No definition for INFIELD, of course.

[Rich Ives]

1 minute ago, yawetag said:

 

No definition for INFIELD, of course.

Well there is - but it kinda doesn't really apply.  It's the 90 foot square. 

 

2.01 Layout of the Field
The field shall be laid out according to the instructions below, supplemented
by the diagrams in Appendices 1, 2, and 3.
The infield shall be a 90-foot square.

[noumpere]

5 minutes ago, yawetag said:

MLB is specifically clear on who is an "infielder" : An INFIELDER is a fielder who occupies a position in the infield.

No definition for INFIELD, of course.

"The infield shall be a 90-foot square."

[yawetag]

29 minutes ago, noumpere said:

"The infield shall be a 90-foot square."

That holds no water in any other incident of INFIELDER being mentioned, though. We don't expect the obvious infielders to be within that 90-foot square.

[Guest Professor Ripster]

On ‎8‎/‎20‎/‎2019 at 9:59 AM, Jimurray said:

2. The MLBUM bolds "making a play on the ball". The umpire needs to judge if another infielder has a chance to make a play on the ball. You may not be as strict as the Wendelstedt School in your judgement as to, for example, F4's ability to play on a ball hit directly to F3 that he misses.

Right, but what I still don't get is what constitutes "making a play."  Maybe after the ball gets by or through one infielder another fielder can get to it, but if getting to it is all he can do, did he make a play on it?  Or to make a play (for purposes of this rule) does he have to get to it with a reasonable possibility of throwing someone out?

On ‎8‎/‎20‎/‎2019 at 8:42 AM, Matt said:

For not being an umpire, you seem to grasp the implicit concepts and understand the proper verbiage quite well.

Thanks.  I'm a fan of the game and I've played recreational softball for many years.  I just have an interest, that's all.  Whenever anyone says, "Nobody goes to a game to watch the umpires," well, sometimes I do...………...

[Jimurray]

51 minutes ago, Guest Professor Ripster said:

Right, but what I still don't get is what constitutes "making a play."  Maybe after the ball gets by or through one infielder another fielder can get to it, but if getting to it is all he can do, did he make a play on it?  Or to make a play (for purposes of this rule) does he have to get to it with a reasonable possibility of throwing someone out?

Thanks.  I'm a fan of the game and I've played recreational softball for many years.  I just have an interest, that's all.  Whenever anyone says, "Nobody goes to a game to watch the umpires," well, sometimes I do...………...

It's just being able to field the ball.