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...