R3 steals home and is hit by pitch PRIOR to touching the plate

[BLWizzRanger]

Hey guys, great insights here. Learning alot. But, why are the runners, say R1, and R2 awarded a base when, 'probably' the only reason the pitch hit R3 is because of R3's actions?

Its not soakies, it isnt a batter standing there getting hit (which the batter is the only one awarded a base), its the runner putting theirselves in a position to possibly be hit. Why award other runners for that?

Could it be that chances are the runner is in fair territory and the pitched ball becomes dead on contact and does not cross the foul lines - something akin to a balk?

Ready to learn...

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930AZ using Tapatalk

[maven]

3 hours ago, BLWizzRanger said:

But, why are the runners, say R1, and R2 awarded a base when, 'probably' the only reason the pitch hit R3 is because of R3's actions?

From the umpire's standpoint, the answer to this question is: because that's the rule.

From the rulesmakers' standpoint, the answer is presumably: because that offers the best balance between offense and defense.

[noumpere]

12 hours ago, maven said:

From the umpire's standpoint, the answer to this question is: because that's the rule.

From the rulesmakers' standpoint, the answer is presumably: because that offers the best balance between offense and defense.

I might also ask the coaches whether other runners (generally) attempt to advance when R3 steals home. In that case, it makes sense to award them the advance base, as opposed to sending them back (and, yes, the rules makers could have made this advance a condition -- as on CI -- stealing runners advance).  I don't know whether that's true or not -- just speculation.

[Jimurray]

1 hour ago, noumpere said:

I might also ask the coaches whether other runners (generally) attempt to advance when R3 steals home. In that case, it makes sense to award them the advance base, as opposed to sending them back (and, yes, the rules makers could have made this advance a condition -- as on CI -- stealing runners advance).  I don't know whether that's true or not -- just speculation.

The college rule makers did make the provision that only stealing runners advance. 

[noumpere]

6 hours ago, Jimurray said:

The college rule makers did make the provision that only stealing runners advance. 

Thanks -- I don't think I ever knew this rule difference.  OTOH, I can count the number of times R3 was hit by the pitch in my 2.5 score years of umpiring on zero hands

[Senor Azul]

Mr. BLWizzRanger, I cannot tell you definitively why there is the double penalty in the rule but perhaps the history of the rule will shed some light (I also have one source that stated that the rule would also serve to discourage a pitcher in such a situation from throwing the ball at the runner). The rule first appeared in the book in 1920 as

OBR rule 56 section 21—

In event a base-runner is trying to score from third base on a pitched ball or the “squeeze” play, a “balk” and also an “interference” should be called if the catcher runs out in front of the plate to catch the ball; and the runner shall be allowed to score and the batsman entitled to first base. The same penalties must be imposed in case the catcher pushes the batsman out of the way, or tips his bat.

It pretty much remained that way through 1949 (though it had become rule 47 Section 9). Then in 1950 when the rule book was completely revised and recodified the rule became 7.07 and 5.09(j)—

7.07 If, with a runner on third base and trying to score by means of a squeeze play or a steal, the catcher steps on, or in front of home base without possession of the ball, or touches the batter or his bat, the runner shall be awarded home base for interference, the pitcher shall be charged with a balk, the batter shall be awarded first base, and the ball is dead.

5.09 THE BALL BECOMES DEAD and runners return, or advance, to their bases, without jeopardy or liability to be put out, when--

(j) Any legal pitch hits a runner trying to score; runner advances.

 

[Jimurray]

2 hours ago, noumpere said:

Thanks -- I don't think I ever knew this rule difference.  OTOH, I can count the number of times R3 was hit by the pitch in my 2.5 score years of umpiring on zero hands

Don't thank me. I wasn't aware either. @Senor Azul educated me in an earlier post referencing the BRD.