Another fly ball to F3

[Richard_Siegel]

What do you have?

High fly ball to F3. R1 is on 1B. The ball is coming down right at the location of the base. R1 standing squarely on the base, kind of bends over and covers his head and neck with his arms to protect himself from the ball coming down at him. F3 is looking up at the ball, drifting with it to make the catch. The drift of the ball takes him right into R1's body who is not even looking up or at him. Bumping into R1 prevented F3 from reaching the ball that fell a few feet away.

[heyblue26]

Richard I would say that you have interference on the runner. Why I say this is that the runner is not protected in this situation and has to make attempt to move out of the way so the first baseman can make a catch. Now if it was and infield fly he the runner would be protected and entitled to the base and that is the only time. Correct me if am wrong.

[dash_riprock]

Richard I would say that you have interference on the runner. Why I say this is that the runner is not protected in this situation and has to make attempt to move out of the way so the first baseman can make a catch. Now if it was and infield fly he the runner would be protected and entitled to the base and that is the only time. Correct me if am wrong.
You are confusing protection of the runner from being out for being hit by a batted ball with protection from interference. If a runner on base is hit by an infield fly, he is not out.

In Richard's situation, since the runner is on a legally acquired base, interference must be intentional.

Edited to add: Unless the batter has now "forced" R1 to 2nd, and 1st base is no longer R1's legally acquired base, in which case the interference need not be intentional.

Good one Richard.

[bobjenkins]

What do you have?



You don't say where the ball fell (and what happened after it fell). It's either play on or a foul ball

[Richard_Siegel]

You don't say where the ball fell (and what happened after it fell). It's either play on or a foul ball

That is not the issue. The question is if this is interference. If it were intereference then the ball is dead and somebody is called out. If it was not interference, the play stands whether fair or foul.

[dash_riprock]

Right. The issue is whether 1st base is still R1's legally occupied base.

[dash_riprock]

I think heyblue26 might have it right, but for the wrong reason. If it is an infield fly, the batter is out, R1 is not forced, and 1st remains his legally occupied base, so the INT must be intentional.

Once again - good one!

[Richard_Siegel]

This is true in OBR too.....

8-2-8... A runner need not vacate his base to permit a fielder to catch a fly ball in the infield, but he may not interfere.

[Ozzy]

Wait, wait, Rich!

Was it a day or a night game?

[Richard_Siegel]

Wait, wait, Rich!

Was it a day or a night game?

day .

[dash_riprock]

I'm revising my answer (again).

FED: INT. R1 is out, B/R awarded 1st base.

NCAA: No INT, play on, unless the interference is intentional, then the B/R is out and, with less than 2 out, so is R1.

OBR: INT, B/R is out and, with less than 2 out, so is R1 unless the batted ball is an infield fly and the interference is unintentional - then no INT, play on..

[robbyrudd455]

I have no interference. R1 is expected to be on first to tag in case the ball is caught. If a runner is on a base, he is protected from interference unless he does something intentional.

I have nothing in all codes.

[mike_l]

6.5 RUNNER INTERFERES WHILE IN CONTACT WITH BASE
If a runner has contact with a legally occupied base when he hinders a fielder attempting to make a play on a batted ball, the runner shall not be called out unless, in the umpire's judgment, such hindrance, whether it occurs on fair or foul territory, is intentional. If the umpire declares the hindrance intentional, the following penalty shall apply: With less than two out, the umpire shall declare both the runner and batter out. With two out, the umpire shall declare he batter out. See Casebook Comments to Official Baseball Rule 7.08(b).

i would say no INT

[umpgent]

No INT unless intentional (I'm late to this party).

I saw a very similar play (on TV) happen in 2007 (except at 3B) where F5 actually pushed R3 off the base to get to the ball (which dropped fair).

Not only was it called no INT, but the ump later explained that he would not have allowed the tag in the event that F5 had tagged R3 after being pushed off.

[dash_riprock]

No INT unless intentional (I'm late to this party).

I saw a very similar play (on TV) happen in 2007 (except at 3B) where F5 actually pushed R3 off the base to get to the ball (which dropped fair).

Not only was it called no INT, but the ump later explained that he would not have allowed the tag in the event that F5 had tagged R3 after being pushed off.
Unlike the other codes, I don't believe intent enters into the equation in FED.

[bobjenkins]

Unlike the other codes, I don't believe intent enters into the equation in FED.

I think it depends on how one reads 8.4.2I (the only place I think it's covered): A runner need not vacate his base to permit a fielder to make a catch, but he shall give the fielder a reasonable opportunity to make a play.

I read that as something like "the runner must move the the side of the base away from the fielder, if possible", or, "willful indifference can be viewed as intent."

I think the practical enforcement of the rule is the same in all codes.

[MCLEOD36]

BobJenk,
I agree, I think you have to look at intent here, in all codes and indiffernce would lead me to think of intent.

If R1 is trying to move, but stays on the base, then nothing, BUT, if he is standing like a statue, I think he is savy enough to know and understand, thus, OUT.

[dash_riprock]

I think it depends on how one reads 8.4.2I (the only place I think it's covered): A runner need not vacate his base to permit a fielder to make a catch, but he shall give the fielder a reasonable opportunity to make a play.

I read that as something like "the runner must move the the side of the base away from the fielder, if possible", or, "willful indifference can be viewed as intent."

I think the practical enforcement of the rule is the same in all codes.
See 8-2-8: "A runner need not vacate his base to permit a fielder to catch a fly ball in the infield, but he may not interfere." "He may not interfere" seems pretty clear to me that intent is not necessary. 8.4.2 I(b) has F4 standing behind 2nd base when the ball hits R1 who is standing on the base. Since R1 is not out, he did not interfere. See - clear as mud.