Runner Has a Duty to Vacate Base?

[johnnyg08]

I got this question in my email the other day. I think the umpire is misunderstanding the term "safe haven"

 

What this play is...is a runner interference play...but "safe haven" isn't something that's really part of this play as the runner isn't hit by the batted ball while standing on the base..which of course minus an infield fly, the base is NOT a safe haven. 

 

Really, this is more about a runner's "requirement" to vacate the base to allow the fielder to field the ball. Please help me break this down. Thanks! 

 

2 outs, R1

High fly ball just behind shortstop.  Wind blows it back into the field and takes him right over 2nd base where he knocks the runner off the base.  Ball drops, second baseman picks up ball and tags runner while off the base.  Runner was ruled out.

 

HC comes out and argues that his runner can't be run over like that and that his runner was on the base.  I ruled it interference on the runner and that the base wasn't a safe haven.  Explained that the runner has to avoid contact, and therefore was ruled out.

 

How does the NFHS want this to be ruled?  Is the base not a safe haven for runners?

[Velho]

Does NFHS not have the unintentional interference when in contact with the base protection? I can't find anything.

OBR Rule 6.01(a) Penalty for Interference Comment: A runner who is adjudged to have hindered a fielder who is attempting to make a play on a batted ball is out whether it was intentional or not. If, however, the runner has contact with a legally occupied base when he hinders the fielder, he shall not be called out unless, in the umpire’s judgment, such hindrance, whether it occurs on fair or foul territory, is intentional

[jimurrayalterego]

49 minutes ago, Velho said:

Does NFHS not have the unintentional interference when in contact with the base protection? I can't find anything.

OBR Rule 6.01(a) Penalty for Interference Comment: A runner who is adjudged to have hindered a fielder who is attempting to make a play on a batted ball is out whether it was intentional or not. If, however, the runner has contact with a legally occupied base when he hinders the fielder, he shall not be called out unless, in the umpire’s judgment, such hindrance, whether it occurs on fair or foul territory, is intentional

FED 8-2-8 has "a runner need not vacate a base to permit a fielder to catch a fly ball in the infield, but the runner may not interfere."

Their wording is different than OBR and a caseplay requires the runner to give the fielder a reasonable opportunity.

An OBR runner does not even have to look at what the fielder's path might be. The runner can just stand there. FED's wording is problematic. 

[johnnyg08]

I don't equate standing there as interfering though. I think of it like the batter interference. Movement could likely result in interference. What's to stop the defense from simply running into a base runner who is simply standing on the base?

If they're not required to vacate, then they should be allowed to stand there. 

[Velho]

1 hour ago, jimurrayalterego said:

FED 8-2-8 has "a runner need not vacate a base to permit a fielder to catch a fly ball in the infield, but the runner may not interfere."

Their wording is different than OBR and a caseplay requires the runner to give the fielder a reasonable opportunity.

Thank you. I was word searching and then scanning. If it had been a snake it'd a bit me as Mama Cornette always said.

rant (I hate NFHS font. At least in the 2023 pdf I have) /rant

[jimurrayalterego]

2 hours ago, johnnyg08 said:

I don't equate standing there as interfering though. I think of it like the batter interference. Movement could likely result in interference. What's to stop the defense from simply running into a base runner who is simply standing on the base?

If they're not required to vacate, then they should be allowed to stand there. 

So would you have OBS in NFHS where the fielder without the ball hindered the runner. 

[johnnyg08]

11 minutes ago, jimurrayalterego said:

So would you have OBS in NFHS where the fielder without the ball hindered the runner. 

Depends. Maybe yes. Maybe no. There's rule support for both. 

[JSam21]

9 hours ago, jimurrayalterego said:

So would you have OBS in NFHS where the fielder without the ball hindered the runner. 

If they are the protected fielder... no...

[johnnyg08]

Then...we would never allow an out on a play like this correct? 

We'd call time and place the runner back at 2B. 

There's an MiLB interp and a Wendelstedt interp that offer guidance on this...but I don't think there's an NFHS interp. 

[MadMax]

22 hours ago, johnnyg08 said:

2 outs, R1

High fly ball just behind shortstop.

I think we're overlooking a key component on this play. 

Before that, is this truly R1 – as in, the Runner is on 1B? Or, is this that stoooopid Fed-only arcane nomenclature where they put "R1" on the only Runner on base, and in this case, he's on 2B (not that we would need to know that, TYVFM)? 

On a fly ball, we must remember, that all Runners and other personnel (ie. BCs, ODH, etc.) must not hinder or impede a fielder (you can say, a (singular) protected fielder) from attempting to catch said fly ball. While there is more latitude given to a Runner on a base, standing stationary, that margin is razor thin. The "safe haven" anecdote is regarding a/the Runner being struck / touched by a live batted ball, and that safe haven only applies to a fly ball, in an IFF situation. 

So if it truly is a fly ball, then a Runner standing on the bag has to adjust / reposition so as to allow the fielder to attempt to catch the ball. From what you guys have been describing, it reads like you're discussing a ground ball. We need more clarification, but this reads like pretty straightforward INT. 

Besides that, why would the Runner glom onto 2B, on a pop fly near/over 2B... with 2 outs? 🤔

[jimurrayalterego]

47 minutes ago, MadMax said:

I think we're overlooking a key component on this play. 

Before that, is this truly R1 – as in, the Runner is on 1B? Or, is this that stoooopid Fed-only arcane nomenclature where they put "R1" on the only Runner on base, and in this case, he's on 2B (not that we would need to know that, TYVFM)? 

On a fly ball, we must remember, that all Runners and other personnel (ie. BCs, ODH, etc.) must not hinder or impede a fielder (you can say, a (singular) protected fielder) from attempting to catch said fly ball. While there is more latitude given to a Runner on a base, standing stationary, that margin is razor thin. The "safe haven" anecdote is regarding a/the Runner being struck / touched by a live batted ball, and that safe haven only applies to a fly ball, in an IFF situation. 

So if it truly is a fly ball, then a Runner standing on the bag has to adjust / reposition so as to allow the fielder to attempt to catch the ball. From what you guys have been describing, it reads like you're discussing a ground ball. We need more clarification, but this reads like pretty straightforward INT. 

Besides that, why would the Runner glom onto 2B, on a pop fly near/over 2B... with 2 outs? 🤔

The runner does not have to adjust in OBR. Onora kicked that rule two ways back in 2012 and MLB issued a correction. The FED caseplay wording implies some adjustment but there is an old Rumble interp that the hindrance must be deliberate.

[johnnyg08]

41 minutes ago, jimurrayalterego said:

The runner does not have to adjust in OBR. Onora kicked that rule two ways back in 2012 and MLB issued a correction. The FED caseplay wording implies some adjustment but there is an old Rumble interp that the hindrance must be deliberate.

Yeah, I don't think I'll ever be sold on the idea that a runner has to "readjust" on the base to allow the fielder to move. When you think about it, things can only go wrong for the runner. What if the runner inadvertently adjusts the wrong way? Still guilty.  

If the runner doesn't move while standing on the base, the defense can work with that. If it falls and hits the runner (in this case) the runner is out. 

Yes...the OP probably means 2B...and why didn't the runner run? Who knows...kids do crazy things that often make zero sense. 

 

[Jimurray]

14 minutes ago, johnnyg08 said:

If it falls and hits the runner (in this case) the runner is out. 

 

 

That would depend on the path of the ball and location of the fielder/s. 

[johnnyg08]

Just now, Jimurray said:

That would depend on the path of the ball and location of the fielder/s. 

For sure. But I don't want to get too third world with this. 

[johnnyg08]

1 hour ago, MadMax said:

I think we're overlooking a key component on this play. 

Before that, is this truly R1 – as in, the Runner is on 1B?

I wonder...could this be R1...who was running on the airborne batted ball, now stopped at 2B b/c of the action around 2B? 

[Velho]

17 minutes ago, johnnyg08 said:

I wonder...could this be R1...who was running on the airborne batted ball, now stopped at 2B b/c of the action around 2B? 

Would it matter? I thought same but them re-read the language. 

[johnnyg08]

6 minutes ago, Velho said:

Would it matter? I thought same but them re-read the language. 

Not likely...but it does change the situation a little bit. 

These are really hard w/o video. 

IMO, that was pretty key information that was not included in the message that was sent to me.