Runner Touched by Fair Ball in Little League - What's the Call?

[Lindsay]

What happens when a runner is touched by a fair ball? During the Canada vs Aruba Little League World Series game, a baserunner from first base ran into a batted ball after it passed the drawn-in first baseman, but before it got to the second baseman backing up. Umpires, what's the call here?

With one out and one on, a ground ball to the right side eluded Aruba's diving first baseman, without touching him or his glove, before striking baserunner R1 behind him, as the second baseman ranged to his left to potentially back up the play. After initially ruling runner R1 out, umpires ultimately placed R1 on second base, deeming that he did not interfere with the batted ball.

Official Baseball Rule 6.01(a)(11) states it is interference when "A fair ball touches them on fair territory before touching a fielder. If a fair ball goes through, or by, an infielder, and touches a runner immediately back of him, or touches the runner after having been deflected by a fielder, the umpire shall not declare the runner out for being touched by a batted ball. In making such decision the umpire must be convinced that the ball passed through, or by, the fielder, and that no other infielder had the chance to make a play on the ball."

Little League Rule 5.09(f) is nearly identical in outcome: "If a fair ball goes through, or by an infielder and touches a runner immediately back of said infielder or touches a runner after being deflected by an infielder, the ball is in play and the umpire shall not declare the runner out. In making such decision, the umpire must be convinced that the ball passed through, or by, the infielder and that no other infielder had the chance to make a play on the ball; runners advance if forced."

Given that the ball did not make contact with the first baseman, the operative question, thus, is whether or not the second baseman had the chance to make a play on the ball. If he did, then the runner is out. If he did not, then the runner is not out. What's your call?

Video as follows:
Alternate Link: Runner called safe after being touched by fair ball as umpires rule he did not interfere

View the full article

[Jimurray]

I have an untouched batted ball going through or by F3 with F4 having a play on it. R1 out for INT, BR to 1B. 
I’m guessing they had F4 with no play. 

[grayhawk]

56 minutes ago, Jimurray said:

I have an untouched batted ball going through or by F3 with F4 having a play on it. R1 out for INT, BR to 1B. 
I’m guessing they had F4 with no play. 

[Richvee]

1 hour ago, Jimurray said:

I have an untouched batted ball going through or by F3 with F4 having a play on it. R1 out for INT, BR to 1B. 
I’m guessing they had F4 with no play. 

But F4 WS right behind them. I think they kicked this one. 

[jimurrayalterego]

1 hour ago, Richvee said:

But F4 WS right behind them. I think they kicked this one. 

So did they judge badly about F4 or not know how to apply the through or by exception? We have had some experienced umps post here about runners hit by batted balls that had no clue how the rule should be enforced. I can't tell if the crew got together and the coaches accepted what they were selling so there was no actual protest and we don't know how LL would have ruled. 

[Velho]

No protest, not challenged.

Doing my best Jomboy, it was ruled as past & through F3 (high confidence they said that in crew conference and to the DC). The next part I'm lower confidence but I think that when DC asked PU about F4, PU said "that doesn't matter".

In other words, I think they simply misunderstood that a second viable fielder is protected.

It's entirely possible they had it as a deflection, which makes it all moot (not sure why Lindsay was (imo) very dismissive of that aspect), but I didn't lip read that at all.

 

5.09(f) from the RIM for reference.

[jimurrayalterego]

18 minutes ago, Velho said:

No protest, not challenged.

 

In other words, I think they simply misunderstood that a second viable fielder is protected

 

You can't misunderstand that. You just don't know it, as many here in posts have shown.

[stevis]

Worlds colliding...I worked with that U1 at a state tournament this year.

I think F4 having a play is easy to pick up from the "high home" angles we get to look at...I'm not so sure that's a clear read from the field angles they actually had. (Remember, U2 is outside in this small diamond mechanic.) 

[Jimurray]

1 hour ago, stevis said:

Worlds colliding...I worked with that U1 at a state tournament this year.

I think F4 having a play is easy to pick up from the "high home" angles we get to look at...I'm not so sure that's a clear read from the field angles they actually had. (Remember, U2 is outside in this small diamond mechanic.) 

If “that doesnt matter” is a correct lip read they kicked it. We have to adjust the Wendelstedt interp to this level but they have any Pro F4 able to make a play in the normal infield config.

[ArchAngel72]

 

Im going WAY out there.

 

So lets look at the play in whole.

F3 misses his play on the ball it gets by him hitting R1 in the foot.  F4 thus misses his chance to field the ball behind F3 and could not have made a throw to 1st or 2nd as F6 was in the outfield shagging the ball

 

Thus no INT as 2nd could not have thrown out R1 or R2 as neither base was covered.

🤪

[Richvee]

2 hours ago, stevis said:

Worlds colliding...I worked with that U1 at a state tournament this year.

I think F4 having a play is easy to pick up from the "high home" angles we get to look at...I'm not so sure that's a clear read from the field angles they actually had. (Remember, U2 is outside in this small diamond mechanic.) 

U3 and PU should have clearly seen F4 in position 

[Richvee]

10 minutes ago, ArchAngel72 said:

 

Im going WAY out there.

 

So lets look at the play in whole.

F3 misses his play on the ball it gets by him hitting R1 in the foot.  F4 thus misses his chance to field the ball behind F3 and could not have made a throw to 1st or 2nd as F6 was in the outfield shagging the ball

 

Thus no INT as 2nd could not have thrown out R1 or R2 as neither base was covered.

🤪

The rule doesn’t say “another fielder has a chance to retire a runner.’ 

[jimurrayalterego]

13 minutes ago, ArchAngel72 said:

 

Im going WAY out there.

 

So lets look at the play in whole.

F3 misses his play on the ball it gets by him hitting R1 in the foot.  F4 thus misses his chance to field the ball behind F3 and could not have made a throw to 1st or 2nd as F6 was in the outfield shagging the ball

 

Thus no INT as 2nd could not have thrown out R1 or R2 as neither base was covered.

🤪

This is what the LL umpire apologists are spouting on the CCS Youtube. Unfortunately, Lindsey waffled on what the call should be, which is INT>

[agdz59]

So why not write the rule thus:

"If a fair ball goes through, or by all infielders with a reasonable ability to make a play on the ball and touches a runner immediately back of said infielder(s) or touches a runner after being deflected by an infielder, the ball is in play and the umpire shall not declare the runner out. In making such decision, the umpire must be convinced that the ball passed through, or by, the infielder(s) and that no other infielder had the chance to make a play on the ball; runners advance if forced.  The determination of 'a reasonable ability to make a play' is at the sole discretion of the umpires on the field."

 

Isn't that much clearer and EXACTLY what the intent of the rule is?  Instead, you get a lot of umpires reading the meat of the rule without the 'exception' which really isn't an exception at all.  

The people who write the rule books need a good editor but never seem to find the time or money to employ one.

[Velho]

2 hours ago, Jimurray said:

 

1 hour ago, jimurrayalterego said:

 

Not that these two identities are arguing but I don't think this is how burner accounts are supposed to work @Jimurray @jimurrayalterego 😂

[Jimurray]

8 minutes ago, Velho said:

Not that these two identities are arguing but I don't think this is how burner accounts are supposed to work @Jimurray @jimurrayalterego 😂

The site never would let me change email so I signed up as alter. My computer signs in as alter. My phone recently let me sign in and change email on the old account. So when I use phone it’s the old me. 

[Velho]

26 minutes ago, Jimurray said:

The site never would let me change email so I signed up as alter. My computer signs in as alter. My phone recently let me sign in and change email on the old account. So when I use phone it’s the old me. 

That's a pain. Hopefully whatever shook loose will let your computer log in now.

[BLWizzRanger]

I would think I could speak for everyone here saying that the latter was much smarter than the former.

[SeeingEyeDog]

1 hour ago, BLWizzRanger said:

I would think I could speak for everyone here saying that the latter was much smarter than the former.

Well, you know...you always "lose something" when you make a copy...

~Dawg

P.S. Peace and love, Jim!

[beerguy55]

5 hours ago, jimurrayalterego said:

This is what the LL umpire apologists are spouting on the CCS Youtube. Unfortunately, Lindsey waffled on what the call should be, which is INT>

It's one of those cases where they got the rule wrong, but the correct outcome occurred, when you talk about determining what would have happened if no interference.  If that ball did not hit the runner, F4 fields it, and....nothing.   No play at first or second, R1/R2 no outs.

Lindsay botched this one, IMO, and was really fixated on the announcers being wrong...though they were right. If it touched F3 then it's not INT.  It's there in black and blue in the LL rule she posted.  They were "hung up" on that because it was the only plausible explanation for calling the runner safe.  As well, the announcers didn't claim he was safe because the first baseman had a chance...they were telling the viewers what they were told by a third party AND also said they think that is wrong.

[BLWizzRanger]

Well, you know...you always "lose something" when you make a copy...
~Dawg
P.S. Peace and love, Jim!

Thats a proven fact!

Sent from my SM-F721U1 using Tapatalk

[SeeingEyeDog]

2 hours ago, BLWizzRanger said:

Thats a proven fact!

Sent from my SM-F721U1 using Tapatalk
 

HAH! This is EXACTLY the movie I was thinking of! Hilarious...well done, Brother Ranger...

~Dawg

[Richvee]

5 hours ago, beerguy55 said:

If that ball did not hit the runner, F4 fields it, and.

That’s all we need to know. What F4 could have/could not have done is not part of the judgement here. He had a chance be to make a play on the ball…. End of story. 

[beerguy55]

11 hours ago, Richvee said:

That’s all we need to know. What F4 could have/could not have done is not part of the judgement here. He had a chance be to make a play on the ball…. End of story. 

I already stated by rule he should have been out, in the sentence directly preceding the one you quoted...I was simply describing the "correct" outcome, which doesn't always align with the rules.  That same preceding sentence makes that very clear.  Words don't operate in a bubble - context matters.

Mansplain to someone else.

[Richvee]

3 hours ago, beerguy55 said:

I already stated by rule he should have been out, in the sentence directly preceding the one you quoted...I was simply describing the "correct" outcome, which doesn't always align with the rules.  That same preceding sentence makes that very clear.  Words don't operate in a bubble - context matters.

Mansplain to someone else.

The only place the outcome is "correct" is in your mind. And in the minds of others who don't know the rule, or are using the MSU rulebook. .