Out or not

[gerry]

Runner at second and better hits ball up the middle and hits the runner who is still standing on second base.   What's the call?

[noumpere]

If the ball in bounding, the base is not a safe haven for being hit by a batted ball.  So, if the runner would have been out if he was off the base, he's out if he was on the base.

If it's a fly ball, the runner need not leave the base, but he can't intentionally interfere.

[MadMax]

6 minutes ago, gerry said:

What's the call?

Gen-X’ers remember this one: 🎵 “Five Eight Eight, Two Three Hundred, Empiiiiiire.” 🎵 

7 minutes ago, gerry said:

What's the call?

If you live in Wisconsin: “David Gruber… One Call, That’s All.” (Big grin) 😁 

@gerry, the particular type of bat-sport matters: 

Baseball ⚾️? Out. 
Softball 🥎? Not out, unless intentional. 

[jimurrayalterego]

3 hours ago, noumpere said:

 

If it's a fly ball, the runner need not leave the base, but he can't intentionally interfere.

He can't be called for interference with a fielder unless intentional. But why can't he be called for being hit by a fly batted ball, other than an Infield Fly, that satisfies the rule.

[beerguy55]

In softball this is not an out - I believe in all rulesets - due to the smaller basepaths and the limitations in leadoff capabilities, the runner is more likely to be hit by a ball while still on base.  (although, I do not think LL minors baseball has this exception)

[Velho]

57 minutes ago, beerguy55 said:

In softball this is not an out - I believe in all rulesets - due to the smaller basepaths and the limitations in leadoff capabilities, the runner is more likely to be hit by a ball while still on base.  (although, I do not think LL minors baseball has this exception)

No LL exception (baseball nor softball). Runner hit by a batted ball before through or by and no other fielder with a chance to make a play is an out.

 

[noumpere]

16 hours ago, jimurrayalterego said:

He can't be called for interference with a fielder unless intentional. But why can't he be called for being hit by a fly batted ball, other than an Infield Fly, that satisfies the rule.

Yes, correct.  mis-ststement on my part.

[The Man in Blue]

On 7/20/2026 at 5:54 PM, jimurrayalterego said:

He can't be called for interference with a fielder unless intentional. But why can't he be called for being hit by a fly batted ball, other than an Infield Fly, that satisfies the rule.

 

Is choosing not to move intentional?  Asking for a friend.

[BLWizzRanger]

 
Is choosing not to move intentional?  Asking for a friend.

That is some sort of Zen level or hash pipe level of thinking, my friend.

[Velho]

3 minutes ago, BLWizzRanger said:

21 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

Is choosing not to move intentional?  Asking for a friend.

That is some sort of Zen level or hash pipe level of thinking, my friend.

"Inaction is an action"

(agreed though on possible "Hey man, is that Freedom Rock?" tones)

[jimurrayalterego]

1 hour ago, The Man in Blue said:

 

Is choosing not to move intentional?  Asking for a friend.

 

51 minutes ago, Velho said:

"Inaction is an action"

(agreed though on possible "Hey man, is that Freedom Rock?" tones)

Not moving is not intentional INT unless you are dealing with NFHS umpires who take to heart Caseplay H.4.2 - H which I don't. 

[beerguy55]

3 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

 

Is choosing not to move intentional?  Asking for a friend.

If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice

[The Man in Blue]

1 hour ago, jimurrayalterego said:

 

Not moving is not intentional INT unless you are dealing with NFHS umpires who take to heart Caseplay H.4.2 - H which I don't. 

Unless the intent is to stay in the way, then you are intentionally interfering.

I am curious which part you object to.  It specifically says the runner does not have to leave the base, but does have to give the fielder opportunity to make the play.  That means staying in the way could be interference.

I will agree simply "not moving" might not be interference, but it most definitely might be.  There is additional context that is needed.  It is like "continuing to run."  The incident itself may or may not be interference, but only the obtuse readings conclude it can never be interference.

[The Man in Blue]

16 minutes ago, beerguy55 said:

If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice

I recently took part in one of the largest democratic annual meetings in the country.  In our caucus, there was serious misunderstanding of "not adopting a position" (we are choosing to remain neutral) and "not having reached a position" (we were unable to reach a majority or did not even discuss the matter).  The chair used "the body has no position" in all contexts.  

[jimurrayalterego]

3 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

Unless the intent is to stay in the way, then you are intentionally interfering.

I am curious which part you object to.  It specifically says the runner does not have to leave the base, but does have to give the fielder opportunity to make the play.  That means staying in the way could be interference.

 

Staying the way of the batted ball and getting hit by it definitely is INT.  I object to NFHS adding that statement as it applies to vacating a base for a fielder. Standing still, as long as it is not in the path of the ball is reasonable. 

[834k3r]

19 hours ago, beerguy55 said:

If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice

Geddy Lee, 1980

[Kevin_K]

4 hours ago, 834k3r said:

Geddy Lee, 1980

I'm shocked @Richvee didn't catch this before me. Neil Peart wrote those words of wisdom.

[834k3r]

1 hour ago, Kevin_K said:

I'm shocked @Richvee didn't catch this before me. Neil Peart wrote those words of wisdom.

Yes, sir. I was merely citing the speaker (singer?) of the words.

[BigBlue4u]

Unless I missed it, nobody has asked the most important question:  Did a fielder have a reasonable chance to field the batted ball.  Yes, runner is out.  No.  Then the ball is live and in play.

[Velho]

1 hour ago, BigBlue4u said:

No.  Then the ball is live and in play.

Only if through or by a fielder. Getting hit by a batted ball that the runner had no reason to expect the defense to field is still an out.

[jimurrayalterego]

15 hours ago, BigBlue4u said:

Unless I missed it, nobody has asked the most important question:  Did a fielder have a reasonable chance to field the batted ball.  Yes, runner is out.  No.  Then the ball is live and in play.

Nobody would or should ask that question in the OP unless it specified NFHS.

[Velho]

16 minutes ago, jimurrayalterego said:

15 hours ago, BigBlue4u said:

Unless I missed it, nobody has asked the most important question:  Did a fielder have a reasonable chance to field the batted ball.  Yes, runner is out.  No.  Then the ball is live and in play.

Nobody would or should ask that question in the OP unless it specified NFHS.

Can you expand on that? How is NFHS different than other rulesets? It reads the  same to me.

NFHS 8-4-2-k Any runner is out when the runner: is contacted by a fair batted ball before it touches an infielder, or after it passes any infielder, except the pitcher, and the umpire is convinced that another infielder has a play. (5-1-1f, 6-1-5)

OBR 5.09(b)(7) Any runner is out when: He is touched by a fair ball in fair territory before the ball has gone through, or by, an infielder and no other infielder has a chance to make a play on the ball. 

[jimurrayalterego]

25 minutes ago, Velho said:

Can you expand on that? How is NFHS different than other rulesets? It reads the  same to me.

NFHS 8-4-2-k Any runner is out when the runner: is contacted by a fair batted ball before it touches an infielder, or after it passes any infielder, except the pitcher, and the umpire is convinced that another infielder has a play. (5-1-1f, 6-1-5)

OBR 5.09(b)(7) Any runner is out when: He is touched by a fair ball in fair territory before the ball has gone through, or by, an infielder and no other infielder has a chance to make a play on the ball. 

NFHS use of the word "passes" generates what we call "string theory". In NFHS with fielders playing in a runner hit by a batted ball "passing" a string between fielders would not be out. They have some caseplays that confirm how they call it.

[beerguy55]

On 7/24/2026 at 3:45 PM, 834k3r said:

Yes, sir. I was merely citing the speaker (singer?) of the words.

As a Canadian, I'm required by law to quote Rush within every 90 days.

[834k3r]

42 minutes ago, beerguy55 said:

As a Canadian, I'm required by law to quote Rush within every 90 days.

Sir, the next time you come into the U.S., we're going to need you to bring MacIntosh toffee and Old Dutch All Dressed chips for everyone.

Keep the ketchup chips though--they're a war crime.