NFHS Runner Hit By Batted Ball.

[JonnyCat]

I need some reference help with FED, runner hit by fair batted ball.

A discussion came up after my game last night about a runner hit with a batted ball in OBR, and the definition of when a ball passes "through or by an infielder." No issues in my understanding of the OBR rule regarding that. It's very clear that in the Wendelstedt RIM and the MLBUM, that "through or by an infielder" is to be interpreted as in the immediate vicinity of said fielder. Again, no issues there.

However, part of last nights discussion was referencing FED rules regarding a runner being hit by a batted ball. As I recall, FED uses what is referred to as "string theory" regarding what constitutes "through or by a fielder?"

In my research on FED "string theory", I can't find any definition or interpretation of what FED defines as "through or by an infielder."

Can anyone point me, or provide any written references as to FED's definition of "through or by an infielder", or case plays, or any authoritative explanation of "string theory"?

Any information would be appreciated. Thanks.

[Jimurray]

18 minutes ago, JonnyCat said:

I need some reference help with FED, runner hit by fair batted ball.

A discussion came up after my game last night about a runner hit with a batted ball in OBR, and the definition of when a ball passes "through or by an infielder." No issues in my understanding of the OBR rule regarding that. It's very clear that in the Wendelstedt RIM and the MLBUM, that "through or by an infielder" is to be interpreted as in the immediate vicinity of said fielder. Again, no issues there.

However, part of last nights discussion was referencing FED rules regarding a runner being hit by a batted ball. As I recall, FED uses what is referred to as "string theory" regarding what constitutes "through or by a fielder?"

In my research on FED "string theory", I can't find any definition or interpretation of what FED defines as "through or by an infielder."

Can anyone point me, or provide any written references as to FED's definition of "through or by an infielder", or case plays, or any authoritative explanation of "string theory"?

Any information would be appreciated. Thanks.

I don't think FED addresses "through or by". They just address "passes"

2013 Interps

"SITUATION 16: With runners at second base and third base and one out, the infield is playing in to prevent the runner on third from scoring. The sharply hit batted ball goes up the middle, passing the pitcher, and the second baseman and shortstop. There is no other infielder in position to make a play on the ball. The batted ball hits the runner while he is standing on second base. RULING: The ball remains live and in play. The runner at second is not out as the ball had passed an infielder and no infielder was in position to make a play. (8-4-2k)"

2002 Interps

"SITUATION 13: With the shortstop playing behind second base and in a position to make a catch, the runner standing on second base is hit by a line drive. RULING: The ball is dead and the runner on second base is declared out. The batter-runner is awarded first base. If no infielder had been in a position to make a play, the ball would remain live, provided the runner did not intentionally allow himself to be hit by the batted ball. (5-1-1f1, 8-4-2k, 6-1-5)"

I think you could read a string theory into those.

 

[JonnyCat]

2 hours ago, Jimurray said:

I think you could read a string theory into those.

Thank you, Jim.

Am I understanding FED's string theory to be as drawing a line between 2 fielders, and if the ball passes that line and hits a runner, that runner is not out? No matter how close the ball was, or wasn't, to one of the 2 fielders?

Basically, if the runner is behind a fielder, then no INT, in front of a fielder, INT? Akin to BU interference?

Who coined the term "string theory?" Does anyone know the origin of that term, or if there is some official written FED discussion about it?

2 hours ago, Jimurray said:

I don't think FED addresses "through or by". They just address "passes"

They do actually use "through or by an infielder" in 5-1-1f(2). They use this term if a ball passes a fielder and another fielder has a chance to make a play on the ball. I guess to make a distinction of when the runner is out.

They just use "passing" in 5-1-1f(1). In this case, the runner is struck before the ball passes an infielder.

Interesting distinction.

[BigBlue4u]

4 hours ago, JonnyCat said:

In my research on FED "string theory", I can't find any definition or interpretation of what FED defines as "through or by an infielder."

Guys,

Don't make this any more difficult than necessary.  Through means the ball passes under the fielder.  By an infielder means the ball passed the infielder.  What more do you need?

[The Man in Blue]

Is there still a play to be made?  That’s really all you need to ask yourself.  Forget about string theory, proximity theory, and theoretical physics.  

[Jimurray]

2 hours ago, BigBlue4u said:

Guys,

Don't make this any more difficult than necessary.  Through means the ball passes under the fielder.  By an infielder means the ball passed the infielder.  What more do you need?

By means passed closely near and playable by the infielder.

[Jimurray]

1 hour ago, The Man in Blue said:

Is there still a play to be made?  That’s really all you need to ask yourself.  Forget about string theory, proximity theory, and theoretical physics.  

You have to specify a play by an infielder in FED and any fielder in OBR/NCAA. I think FED rules as those codes rule with a through or by batted ball. FED doesn't rule as OBR/NCAA with a batted ball that passes not near infielders. OBR/NCAA have a runner hit by a batted ball always out unless the ball went through or by an infielder and no other fielder had a play. In FED with fielders playing in a runner hit by a batted ball behind drawn in infielders, neither of whom had a play, the runner is not called for INT. Thus, I think the string?

[JonnyCat]

5 hours ago, BigBlue4u said:

By an infielder means the ball passed the infielder. 

No F*#King SH*#! 

Does that mean it passed by an infielder in the immediate vicinity, or was it 5' from him, 10', 20'?

OBR specifically defines what "passed through or by an infielder" means. As in the ball must be hit in the immediate vicinity of the fielder.

I'm looking for a FED equivalent interpretation of "string theory." If you can provide me with some written interpretations, or AR's, like I asked in the OP, it would be appreciated. I understand the rule fully, just trying to do some research on the idea of FED's "string theory" approach.

[Jimurray]

52 minutes ago, JonnyCat said:

No F*#King SH*#! 

Does that mean it passed by an infielder in the immediate vicinity, or was it 5' from him, 10', 20'?

OBR specifically defines what "passed through or by an infielder" means. As in the ball must be hit in the immediate vicinity of the fielder.

I'm looking for a FED equivalent interpretation of "string theory." If you can provide me with some written interpretations, or AR's, like I asked in the OP, it would be appreciated. I understand the rule fully, just trying to do some research on the idea of FED's "string theory" approach.

@noumpere probably has referenced this as far back as 2012 and we would welcome his insight. But his references would just be who said what as there are no official interps. The semantics seem to say through or by applies when closely by or through. When not that and a batted ball passes the 2 fielders, assuming a normal infield config, a string drawn between them to determine the passing, a runner is not out in FED if that ball hits him.

[JonnyCat]

18 minutes ago, Jimurray said:

When not that and a batted ball passes the 2 fielders, assuming a normal infield config, a string drawn between them to determine the passing, a runner is not out in FED if that ball hits him.

That's what I'm gathering, as well. Interesting that I can't find any interps on this. The only case plays I see are 5.1.1H,I, and J in my 2023 FED rulebook.

When reading the rule and case plays, it's is clear enough on how to rule in these situations. It's just interesting to me that the idea of "string theory" has not spurned an official interp or more detailed explanation, particularly because it does differ from OBR. I don't even see any real discussion of it in the BRD either.

I was just hoping to find an official interp that I could provide to a colleague that does not call HS. We we're comparing the difference in OBR and HS. He was unaware of the OBR interp regarding the immediate vicinity clause. He was thinking OBR was more along the lines of FED, without actually knowing OBR was different from FED. I was able to provide him with cites from Wendelstedt and the MLBUM, but couldn't find anything from FED to show him.

Thanks for your input on this one, I appreciate it.

[Velho]

On 4/27/2024 at 9:55 PM, JonnyCat said:

He was unaware of the OBR interp regarding the immediate vicinity clause. He was thinking OBR was more along the lines of FED, without actually knowing OBR was different from FED. I was able to provide him with cites from Wendelstedt and the MLBUM, but couldn't find anything from FED to show him.

Sorry if I'm thick... so in FED, the fielders don't get a second chance at the ball like they do in OBR? It's one and done?

[noumpere]

12 minutes ago, Velho said:

Sorry if I'm thick... so in FED, the fielders don't get a second chance at the ball like they do in OBR? It's one and done?

It's difficult to come up with a real-world defensive positioning where the ball passes the string and another fielder has a play.

[Velho]

33 minutes ago, noumpere said:

It's difficult to come up with a real-world defensive positioning where the ball passes the string and another fielder has a play.

What if the fielder initially misplays it but they or another fielder has a OBR qualifying follow-on chance? Is that fielder protected in FED as in OBR?

[noumpere]

44 minutes ago, Velho said:

What if the fielder initially misplays it but they or another fielder has a OBR qualifying follow-on chance? Is that fielder protected in FED as in OBR?

Has nothing to do with the OP, but:

 

Another fielder, yes.  Initial fielder, no.  I think (this is one of the details that has left me since I stopped umpiring).