This folder is reserved for discussions related to the runner, section 7.00 of Official Baseball Rules. Included are topics like interference, obstruction, base awards, etc.

Post away!

Ump,

What does the home plate umpire do when there is a runner on 3rd base and he is trying to steal home? Do you have to still call the pitch coming in or do you have to get in position for the play on the runner at the plate? Does the pitch count?

Bill,

This is one of the most difficult challenges facing a plate umpire. We must first call the pitch then prepare for a play at the plate. When such a play develops, there are NUMEROUS things that can occur, with different rulings a result.

For example: If the pitch hits the runner trying to score; if the batter interferes with a play at the plate (# of outs dictates who is declared out for said interference); if it's a bunt and the catcher interferes with the batter's attempt to bunt (see rule 7.07 for a very specific reference); and more!

Again, there are a lot of things that can happen, and we must be aware of the proper ruling or interpretation depending on which specific outcome should actually occur. What makes it so difficult is that the entire play can literally explode in front of us in a second or two, with a decision required of us just as quickly.

Whew!

Saw an interesting play on the highlights this morning from Montreal-San Francisco game: \"this comedy effort we tried to disguise as a baseball game.\"

- bases loaded, one out
- batter hits a pop-up in the infield, umpire calls the infield fly rule
- P, 3B and C all converge on the ball, but they somehow let it drop
- runner on third runs towards home and slows down as he sees fielder step on home with the ball, mistakenly believing it was a force out at the plate
- runner then steps on the plate and scores while fielders have their backs to the play
- fielders argue with umpire before their manager (Frank Robinson) comes out and scolds them for not tagging the runner

So my question is... what if the runner thought he was out and walked back to the dugout without touching the plate. At what point is he out? Or, if he went towards the dugout but his teammates told him to go back and step on the plate, would he score? And, supposing when the fielder stepped on the plate and didn't hear the upire call "out," could he (the fielder) ask, "Isn't he out?"

[ May 14, 2003, 07:05 AM: Message edited by: canmark ]

Once the umpire judges that a runner has abandoned his effort to advance to a base, the umpire can call said runner out. If we believe a runner is simply confused, as was the case in this humorous situation, we tend to give the runner a bit more leeway. If we believe a runner knows what he's doing and is simply "giving up" advancing to a base, we're more apt to call him out a tad sooner than in the former situation.

In this case, we'd probably call him out when he approached the dugout, but absent that, he'd definitely be called out if he actually stepped into the dugout.

Yes, assuming he hasn't been called out for abandonment.

This can be rather tricky. If a fielder simply but stupidly looks at us and asks this question, we'd probably just reply, "No" and leave it at that. It'd be up to the fielder, then, to figure out what to do next.

Good question, though.

Ump,

I have a question on timing plays with regards to the runner. Say a player is trying to score with 2 outs but his teammate on the base pads is tagged out before he scores. I know the rule is that the run does not count. But, what does the home plate umpire go on to make this decision? Does he wait for the "Out" call from the other umpire or do you have to try to see the actual tag on the runner and try to time it the best you can in regards to the runner trying to score?

Hi, Bill:

Allow me to preface my response by explaining how a run scores--or does not score--when the final out occurs. (Notice I say "final" out, because there can be a 4th out and not necessarily just a 3rd out.)

No run may score when the final out of the inning is the result of:

(a) Failure of the batter-runner to reach or touch first base.

(b) A force out

Also, forces in effect at the time the ball was hit remain in effect for purposes of baserunning infractions when an appeal is made.

Having said this, when a time play situation is in effect, notice that the plate umpire will first signal to his partners this fact. This means he will not rotate to cover any base and will remain home to determine if a runner scores on a possible time play situation. In the majors, the customary signal is the plate umpire using one or both arms extended outward, with two fingers to signal there are two outs. Then the plate umpire will take these same hand(s) and point toward the ground, indicating he's staying at the plate. (Note: There may be slight variations on this among the different crews, but it's essentially the same.)

When a potential time play develops, the plate umpire will move behind the plate, adjusting his position to try and form a straight, direct line from him, through home plate, to the runner being tagged. So, if the play develops at second, the plate umpire will be directly behind the point of the plate--a straight line from him through the plate to second base. If the play should occur at third, he will be on the third base line extended, again forming a direct line from him, through the plate to third base.

The plate umpire will determine if the runner touched or passed the plate BEFORE the actual tag was applied, and NOT when his partner declared the out. The plate umpire will pause a bit to ensure that the out call stands--and that the ball wasn't dropped, for example--before he either counts the run or waves it off. Because of the time involved to process everything in the human brain, it often looks like we base our decision on when our partner calls it, but in reality, we base it on when the actual tag occurs.

BTW, a point I mentioned above: The runner must touch or pass home plate BEFORE the final out is made. This means that if he touches or passes the plate AT THE SAME TIME--a "tie" if you will--the run does NOT count!

Here's a twist if there ever was one, though: If a runner MISSES the plate coming in, then the final out is made, the runner can go back and touch the plate, and his run shall count.

Shea,

In your situation, whether the run scores or not depends on a few things: Where the final out was made/on which runner, and what kind of an out it was. To make it simple, always remember this...

No run scores when the final out of an inning is the result of:

(a) A force out
(b) The batter not reaching or failing to touch first base

So, when the final out is made, ask yourself: Was that a force out? If yes, then no run. If no, then was it the batter-runner who hadn't yet reached or didn't touch first base? If no on that one as well, then the run scores IF the runner touched or passed the plate before the final out was made (this is called a time play).

Some examples for the heck of it...

PLAY 1: Runners on first and third with 1 out when the batter hits a long fly to right field. R3 on third tags up and scores, then R1 from first is doubled up at first for the third out. RULING 1: If R3 touched or passed the plate before R1 was doubled up at first, then R3's run counts.

PLAY 2: Runners on second and third with two outs when the batter hits a double, scoring both runners. The defense appeals that R2 from second missed third base en route home. The umpire calls out R2. RULING 2: R3's run counts, R2's run is nullified, inning over.

PLAY 3: Bases loaded with two outs when the batter hits a triple, clearing the bases. However, the batter-runner overslides third and is tagged for the third out. The first baseman, however, believes the batter-runner missed first base on the triple. On appeal, the umpire calls out the B-R. RULING 3: The B-R is declared out at first base, all three runs are nullified.

PLAY 4: Runners on second and third with two outs when the batter hits a home run. When the ball is put back into play, the defense appeals the batter-runner missed first base. RULING 4: The batter-runner is declared out, all three runs are nullified.

PLAY 5: Bases loaded with two outs when the batter hits a double, scoring all runners. The defense appeals that R2 had missed third en route home. The umpire calls out R2. RULING 5: Because R2's out at third was a force out, he is the third out and all runs are nullified.

Hope this helps. :)

Thanks for the clarification ump -- very insightful....although (using your hypothetical examples) if all those batters and runners are missing bases (particularly in Play 4 when a three run homer is nullified) that player probably wouldn't have many friends in the clubhouse -- not to mention be given a one-way ticket back to AAA by the manager/GM (assuming the baserunning skills, or lack thereof, of their players haven't cost them their job first).

cont'd. from the Baseball section

Regarding the obstruction calls in the 10-4-03 A's-Red Sox game and the Fick interference call in the 10-4-03 Braves-Cubs game:

When obstruction against a runner is called, and it is not a concurrent play--such as what happened with Tejada--it is a delayed dead ball...

The umpire will let the play go through. If the runner who was obstructed advances to or past the base to which we thought he would have advanced, we do nothing and let the play stand. If he does not advance to that base, then "time" is called and we place runners. Tejada's problem was that he stopped and assumed we'd award him something. Big assumption; big mistake.

Because he stopped on his own--no different from if he say, tripped and fell down--he essentially made it worse for himself and took away any possible protection the umpires may have otherwise afforded him.

I'd liken it to a runner who was awarded two bases on a ball thrown out of play, but said runner misses a base en route to his awarded base. Tough luck; he's out if appealed.

On the first obstruction involving the rundown, this is obstruction and a concurrent play on a runner. In such cases, the ball is immediately dead and bases are awarded. When a runner makes contact in a rundown with a fielder, if the fielder has the ball, is about to receive the ball, or just got rid of it, said contact is not obstruction nor interference. "It's nothing" is the ruling. However, in the rundown situation, Eric Chavez was not the one fielding the thrown ball, but he WAS the one who hindered or impeded the runner. Therefore, he committed obstruction. The ball is dead and the runner is awarded his ADVANCE base, regardless in which direction he was running. Another way to say it is that the runner is awarded the greater of the two bases inbetween which he is running.

In the Fick play, he did something intentional. Runners cannot be called out for interference on a thrown ball unless said interference was intentional (EXCEPTION: Running Lane interference). Attempting to slap an arm or mitt to cause the fielder to drop a ball is an intentional act and not permitted.

This is to be differentiated from a runner who legitimately tries to dislodge a ball in mitt by sliding into the tag, etc. Fick's actions were not permissible. Therefore, he is to be called out for interference. The ball is dead, and all runners returned to their time of pitch bases (because Fick was a batter-runner declared out at first). If Fick was the final out, then any runs scoring on the play would be nullified.

Fick CAN be ejected for such actions, but that usually follows something violent or flagrant and is subject to the individual umpire's judgment.

If Tejada stayed at third and a runner behind him went there (third) or beyond that would be ok as long as the runner didn't freak about him being there, right? And Tejada would be waved in once the play is dead.

I'm not sure what you're asking, Chip. Can you clarify it for me? Are you asking what would happen if a runner following Tejada advanced to third and Tejada ended up there, too? Let me know.

******************

Because I am sure someone will pop in here and question the weird play in the 6th inning of tonight's Cubs-Braves NLDS game, I'll explain it.

First of all, I am not going to discuss the catch/no-catch decision. That was an error and is rather irrelevant to this particular discussion. Instead, I am focusing on the other end of the play. We know that if the hit had been ruled a catch, Furcal would have been doubled up at second. That's a no-brainer. Giles appeared to make it back to first in that case, so no triple play would have resulted.

Since the ball was ruled no catch, Giles is forced to second. When the ball was thrown there, he was forced out. But it appeared Sheffield passed Giles, who had retreated back toward first, for whatever reason.

If Giles' force out occurred before Sheffield completely passed Giles, then Sheffield's passing was fine, as passing a runner who is out carries no penalty. If Sheffield DID completely pass Giles before the force out occurred at second, then Sheffield is out and the force on Giles is immediately removed.

When a batter is out, the force on all runners is instantly removed. Because of this, there could not have been two outs at/near first in the disputed situation. Either Giles is out on the force and Sheffield is OK, or Sheffield is out for passing Giles but Giles remains at first.

Having said that, it appeared Sheffield completely passed Giles, which would mean Giles is on first with an out on Sheffield recorded. However, the umpires did not appear to rule that way. I can only surmise that they did not believe Sheffield completely passed Giles, or they simply erred on that end of the play.

Hope this information helps.

If I understand your explaination, given that the ball Sheffield hit was not ruled a catch: under normal circumstances Furcal would be forced to run to 3rd and Giles would be forced to run to 2nd. But if Sheffield passes Giles, then Giles is no longer forced to run to second and could remain at first (as if there was no hit in the first place).

What I didn't understand was: why didn't the Cubs try to tag Giles or Sheffield. (I was yelling at the TV "Tag the runner!") Because after they threw to 2nd, Giles was still wandering off the bag (that was when Sheffield passed him) so: (a) they could have tagged Giles or (b) they could have tagged Sheffield (since he didn't run straight through the bag, he was fair game). But it seemed they threw back to the first base bag. At that point, did they not tag Sheffield before he returned to the bag in the confusion?

Also Umpire, given that the initial catch/no-catch was clearly botched, are there any people calling for NFL-type "challenges" on a limited number of controversial rulings? In this case, the on field decision did not affect the outcome of the game, but what if Furcal's run was the winning run?

------------

Ump, what exactly is the "signal" the umpire gives for a catch and a non-catch? Because Giles clearly thought it was a catch, and that's why he ran back to first instead of going to second. Was he not watching the umpire?

Thanks, ump!

In another thread, Bill W posted

For The Umpire... It's strange that no one is discussing a major part of the Eric Byrnes non-scoring play the other night [Oakland-Boston, 10/4/03], per Rule 7.06:

"NOTE: The catcher, without the ball in his possession, has no right to block the pathway of the runner attempting to score. The base line belongs to the runner and the catcher should be there only when he is fielding a ball or when he already has the ball in his hand."

Well, Varitek did not have the friggin' ball as he was blocking the plate, and Ump, you guys NEVER enforce this rule. Why not? Byrnes' run should've counted, subsequent follies aside.


Jim Allen replied

You mean, apart from Byrnes never touching the plate? Or are you saying that Veritek blocking the plate = automatic counting of run?


Bill W replied

If the baseline belongs to the runner in that situation, what other penalty is possible? He didn't touch the plate because of Varitek illegally blocking him without the ball.

But wouldn't Varitek's move be covered as "fielding a ball"?

Joe Sheehan of Baseball Prospectus says, "'Fielding a ball" is a reference to batted baseballs, not thrown ones... Setting up shop along the third-base line merely to prevent a runner from accessing home plate isn't even a gray area; it is expressly prohibited in the rules."

That is correct, canmark. Once a batter is retired, the force on ALL runners is removed.

I cannot answer why the Cubs did or didn't do something. I think they were a bit confused, to say the least, over the entire thing. I also am willing to bet that Jim McKean, one of our supervisors, had a nice little discussion with the crew after the game. wink

I'm sure there are plenty of people who believe instant replay would be good in baseball, at least for situations like this. But how do you rectify it? Yes, you might be able to declare out Furcal at second for not tagging up on the catch, but what about Giles/Sheffield? There would have been no clear-cut way to use replay there.

Baseball is a uniquely-paced game, sometimes too lengthy if you ask me. I really don't believe instant replay could be used properly in the game, save for maybe one or two very limited situations (fair/foul ball hooking around a foul pole for a home run/foul ball, for example).


------------
When we rule it a no catch, as Dale Scott did yesterday, it's the same as a "safe" call. We emphatically yell, "No catch! No catch!" while giving the "safe" signal. For a catch, we yell, "That's a catch!" While giving the out signal, preferably high enough for everyone to see.

Bill, et. al., Joe Sheehan is full of crap. How can he say this with a straight face? Of course "fielding a ball" includes both batted AND thrown balls. This is applicable on ALL levels: Pro, NCAA, and NFHS.

With respect to the catcher blocking the plate, here is how the ruling is applied...

The catcher is considered in the act of fielding the ball if he (a) possesses it or (b) the ball is on its way to him and no other fielder has cut it off. Let's focus on this latter part, as the first part is a no-brainer.

With a runner on second and a base hit to left, R2 rounds third and attempts to score. The left fielder gets the ball and throws it into home to try and nail R2. Once the ball reaches the infield proper, and assuming the pitcher (or some other fielder) is not trying to intercept it, the catcher will be considered "in the act of fielding" the ball. Period.

He would not be considered "in the act of fielding" the ball if the ball had not yet reached "his vicinity," so to speak, or if another fielder had cut it off and attempted to throw out the batter-runner who, in the above example, might be trying to go to second.

This is not the same at all levels, though. While NFHS and amateur levels using Pro Rules are the same--with some modification for slide rules--NCAA in 2003 significantly, and stupidly, IMHO, altered their obstruction rule. NCAA now requires a fielder to actually HAVE the ball. Even if the ball is 6" away from a fielder's mitt, if he doesn't physically have the ball on his person, it's ruled obstruction. This has created an uproar among the ranks of NCAA, mainly because it's way too restrictive (it is).

So, with all due respect, Mr. Sheehan has no idea what he's talking about.


First of all, be careful when you use the term "baseline," for a runner's baseline is constantly changing and rarely the line connecting the bases. Secondly, Varitek did nothing wrong. The runner simply messed up and didn't tag the plate and was out when Varitek appealed and tagged him.

I think using "baseline" to describe the entire third-base side of the plate that's being directly blocked by the catcher is pretty unambiguous...

So if I understand your explanation of the MLB standard, if the thrown ball has reached the infield, and the runner is 2 inches from home -- ie, it's "on its way," but the catcher has no literal chance of tagging the runner out -- he's still entitled to block the plate, sans ball? Sounds as bad as the other standards you describe for implementing that rule.

[ October 06, 2003, 12:06 PM: Message edited by: Bill W ]

In another thread, bballrob posted

What an interesting weekend! The A's really blew it twice on Saturday. First by blond hottie not touching home, instead limping around and waiting to be tagged, and second when AL MVP rounded 3rd, was probably interfered with, but instead of being sure and continuing to run home, stopped and complained and was tagged out. To me, especially because the throw was high, he could have scored easily. Is there a rule in baseball that you have to stop and lodge a complaint right then? It appears that both guys completely spaced out and stopped without finishing business. In basketball we are taught from day one to keep going until the whistle no matter what. I can understand the disputes with the rules, but it seems to me that the players both made significant mistakes that resulted in outs instead of scores and ultimately resulted in a loss for the As.


The Umpire replied

If Tejada "interfered," then he would have been declared out. wink


bballrob replied

Sorry, must not have been clear, but I thought the third-baseman may have interfered with Tejada, but Tejada stopped and didn't try for home, which I thought was wrong, I think he could have made it. I thought the logical thing to do was to keep going, try to score, and then if he was called out then claim interference. Does he have to stop to claim the interference or can he wait until the play was over?

I believe you're confusing a fielder's right to field a batted or thrown ball. Also, "no literal chance of tagging a runner out" is quite subjective. After all, what does a "literal chance" mean? And by whose definition?

Perhaps it might help to better understand this whole situation this way...

When a runner is attempting to advance to a base or to home plate, and contact occurs, it is going to be one of three types of contact:

1.) Interference on the runner
2.) Obstruction on the fielder
3.) Nothing (sometimes called "incidental contact," though I'm not a fan of that specific term)

Let's look at each in depth.

A fielder has the absolute right to make a play on a batted ball, and is considered priveleged. If a runner hinders or impedes a fielder's attempt to field a batted ball, interference on the runner is called. Note: There are very few, limited exceptions into which I will not delve, for they're irrelevant for purposes of this discussion.

On a thrown ball situation, said interference must be intentional, with the exception of Running Lane Interference. If contact by a runner is intentional on a thrown ball situation, interference on the runner is called. A recent example of this would be the Braves' Fick, who was called out by Plate Umpire Larry Young Sunday for deliberately interfering with Eric Karros' receiving a thrown ball. (Not to mention that it's interference when a runner deliberately tries to slap a ball out of a fielder's mitt.)

When contact occurs between a runner and a fielder who is not in possession of nor is in the act of fielding a batted or thrown ball, said contact is ruled obstruction because the fielder is UNprivileged. He had no right to be where he was.

When contact occurs between a runner and a fielder who possesses a thrown ball or who is about to receive a thrown ball, such contact is neither obstruction (by definition it cannot be) nor interference (if runner's actions are not intentionally designed to do something out of the ordinary). If the contact is neither obstruction nor interference, then it leaves only one choice remaining: It's nothing, no penalty.

There are extensions of the above explanations, extensions involving batted balls and other situations, but I'm hoping the explanation here helps clarify things.

EXAMPLE: A runner on second gets in a rundown between second and third. The second baseman with the ball is chasing R2 toward third. As R2 is heading toward third and the third baseman, he immediately turns around and runs into the second baseman, who had just released the ball to throw it to the third baseman. RULING: No penalty. The second baseman had simply immediately released the ball and cannot be expected to disappear. If, say, the shortstop had also been involved in the play and it was he into whom R2 had bumped while F4 had released the ball, obstruction would have been declared on F6, "time" called, and R2 awarded third.

Why would Tejada claim interference? Because only the offense interferes, Tejada would have to be declared out for such illegal actions?

Seriously, though: The offense interferes, the defense obstructs. The only exception to this is commonly called "catcher's interference," which is more accurately labeled "defensive interference" and applies only to the defense preventing the batter from attempting to hit a pitched ball. Other than that, the defense does not interfere.

In the Tejada situation, because the umpire's judgment is so paramount, one cannot say that sustaining the out was incorrect or that awarding him home was correct. Truthfully, an argument can be made that either outcome would be permissible because of the umpire's judgment involved.

If Bill Welke judged that Tejada's actions of stopping and complaining nullified any advance he otherwise would have been awarded, then his being tagged out is justified. On the other hand, if Welke judged that Tejada would have scored regardless, he could have called "time" when the tag was about to be applied and awarded Tejada home. This latter outcome was, IMHO, probably easier to justify, especially since everybody saw the obstruction so blatantly. Nevertheless, Welke's judgment, which is not subject to anyone else's review, saw it the other way.

This could go under either the batter or the runner, but I'm putting it here for the heck of it.

Here's a doozy...

Runners on first and second with no outs when the batter hits a sky high pop up over second base. The umpires inexplicably do not call Infield Fly, as the second baseman camps underneath it but lets it fall to the ground, where he picks up the ball, tags R1 going to second, then throws to third where the third baseman tags R2 running toward third.

What's the ruling? To make it more interesting, for you amateur umpires out there, you must provide the ruling in Pro, NCAA, and NFHS (Federation). I do know the ruling under those codes, so no trying to trip me up. wink

The obvious answer is that R1 and R2 are both out if the infield fly rule wasn't called...which makes me wonder, because it seems too obvious...

Indeed. The answer is not obvious, though. wink

I would guess the ball would be declared dead and the runners return to their original bases. The batter would not be out since the ball was dropped on purpose by the infielder.

Actually, Bill, you're half right.

In this situation, it cannot be an intentional drop because the ball wasn't dropped; it fell untouched to the ground. The fact the umpires inexplicably failed to declare an Infield Fly doesn't mean it isn't. Here are the rulings in the various codes:

Under NFHS (Federation) rules, it's a triple play. Batter's out on the I.F., and the other runners are out as tagged.

Under NCAA and Pro Rules, the official interpretation, which of course isn't mentioned in the actual rule books, explains that the spirit and intent of the Infield Fly Rule must be followed. The defense cannot be allowed to get an undeserved double play, which they did. While the runners do run at their own risk on an I.F., this is only when the I.F. is actually called. In such situations, the runners know that the batter has been declared out and that the ball is still live, but in the situation where the I.F. SHOULD have been declared but somehow wasn't, the runners have no choice but to leave their bases, thinking the batter is not out.

Here, as I explained, the defense cannot be allowed to get an undeserved double play. Therefore, the I.F. will still be invoked. The batter will be declared out, but the other runners who were tagged would be returned to their time of pitch bases, as the ball would be declared dead in such a situation.

Remember, had the I.F. been declared, the other runners could legitimately have been tagged for additional outs.

Ump---OK I'm confused.
I'm home watching the Diamondbacks/Rockies game (gotta love digital cable) and the play just happened confused me.

Dbacks have runners on first and third---Brandon Webb lays down a bunt and the Rockies catcher throws to second base for the force and pulls Barmes off the bag as the runner is sliding in. Then Barmes throws to first and throws it into the dugout.

They only gave the runner third base, but shouldn't the ruling have been two bases from the time of the throw since it was the second play in the infield?

Thanks

Josh

Are baserunners required to wear a helmet in MLB?

Yes, but you're not going to see an MLB player purposely go without one.

Yes, it is a time of throw award since Barnes's throw was the second play by an infielder. However, the time of throw award is from the bases the runners occupied at the time the ball was released from the fielder's hand. If R1 had not actually touched second base when the ball was released, then he would have been awarded only third. I can't tell from your description if the runner had actually touched the base. It doesn't sound like he did.

They didn't show many replays, so I can't say for sure, but I thought he had already touched the base. However, I feel better knowing that the call was a judgement call, rather than confusing me on a rule!

Thanks

Josh

Ump,

I was watching a highlight of the "Pine Tar" incident back in '83. A couple of questions...

1. It seems cheesy that Billy Martin was able to have the bat looked at after Brett hit the HR. Does the rule state that the bat can be looked at at any time? It seems to me that if Martin had a problem with the amount of pine tar that it should've been looked at prior to the at bat or early in the at bat (unless the 1st pitch was hit for the HR obviously).

2. If there is such a rule, why was McClelland's/Brinkman's decision overturned in this instance by the league office?

Thanks

Bill,

An umpire can act unilaterally when a suspect bat is noticed. However, we generally don't do anything unless someone brings it to our attention. The exception would be if something blatantly obvious occurred, like a broken bat where cork is noticed.

With respect to the infamous pine tar incident, the umpires were completely correct at that time in applying the rules, rules that were changed completely following that incident.

At that time, OBR (Official Baseball Rules) essentially said this:

* A bat that had too much pine tar on it was an illegal bat.

* An illegally batted ball was one hit with an illegal bat.

* A batter hitting an illegally batted ball was declared out and ejected, and everyone returned to time of pitch base.

Rather cut and dry, if you ask me. Brett used an illegal bat and was declared out and ejected. However, then AL President Lee MacPhail upheld the Royals' protest and overturned the umpires call. In fact, he said that the umpires' decision was "technically defensible" but "violated the spirit of the rule." This was preposterous. Had Brett done something that wasn't specifically covered, something where his actions or a penalty would be vague, I can fully agree with this "spirit of the rules" mentality, because we employ that quite often in umpiring. However, there was a clear cut and obvious rule that Brett violated. The crew enforced it properly then got no support from the AL office.

That following off-season, the entire rule was changed.

An illegal bat was redefined as one that was manufactured incorrectly--its intrinsic nature was improper (too long, too wide, etc.).

Too much pine tar was specifically covered under its own rule, with no penalty being applied--the bat was simply to be removed from the game.

And an illegally batted ball was redefined as a ball hit--fair, foul, or foul tip--by the batter with one or both of his feet planted completely outside the batter's box.

Maybe I read it somewhere or saw it in a Yankeeography or on ESPN Classic, but I recall Martin knowing Brett's bat was illegal the entire game but waited until an advantageous time to call attention to it. Martin's reasoning was, why not wait until a key play to expose the bat's illegality? What would have been the point to make a stink about it after an at-bat in which Brett harmlessly flies out?

While that game and incident was a bit before my time, I am sure Martin waited until the moment at which he would benefit the most. It's too bad McClelland didn't see it on his own beforehand. That surely would have taken the proverbial wind out of Martin's sails.

Runner on 1st base, no outs. Batter hits a ground ball to the first baseman. The runner retreats to first base. The first baseman tags the runner, who is standing on first base. The first baseman then steps on first base forcing out the batter. Is the runner out as well? Or is first base still a safe haven even though the runner could've been forced out at second base?

Thanks

[ July 05, 2005, 11:27 AM: Message edited by: Scott McDonald ]

Scott,

In this situation, once the batter hits the ball fair, R1 no longer has any right to first base. Should he retreat there and the batter-runner is also on the base, if R1 is tagged he is out. If for some reason the defense steps on first base before tagging R1, this retires the batter-runner and removes the force on all runners; therefore, R1 would be safe at first base.

Keep this in mind: When two runners occupy the same base, one will be out when tagged. The runner who originally occupies a base retains the right to that base unless he is forced to advance by virtue of the batter becoming a runner. Remember, too, that a force is removed on a particular runner when (a) that runner reaches his advance base, ( a following runner is retired, or © when the batter is retired, which removes the force on ALL runners.

Thanks

Hey Ump...

Haven't seen you on here in a while---hope all is OK.

I saw a highlight of Boston-Toronto tonight, and I must say, I never heard of this rule--

Kapler on first and the guy up hits a HR. Kapler injures himself rounding second, and Boston is allowed to pinch run for him in the middle of the play?
I know a HR is techincally a "dead ball", but it just seems wierd.

I don't have my rule book with me at school now, but if you could let me know what rule covers this situation, that would be great.

Thanks

Josh

josh, just because I don't post doesn't mean I don't occasionally visit. wink I generally pop in once in a while and peruse some of the sports threads. One thing I do not do at all, and haven't for some time, is spend any time in the non-sports threads. Too vicious in there.

Now, regarding your question...when the ball is dead in a situation where there is a base award, in your case a 4-base award, a runner who is injured can be replaced by a substitute without penalty. The sub just picks up where the injured player left off, so to speak. Had the ball been live, say on a base hit/possible double for the batter-runner, Kapler would have been in jeopardy of being tagged out, a rather "tough luck" result.

Ump---OK here's a wierd one that happened in the Mets game today.
Reyes on third and Beltran on first with one out.
David Wright, hits a ball to left, that is clearly trapped. I think Eddings (3B umpire) (but it could have been Demuth--I don't remember), came out, and gave the safe sign right away.

Then--the ball actually bounced over the Orioles LF glove, and up his shirtsleeve. The ball then actually travelled through his uniform and he pulled the ball from behind his head.

How come that's not a deadball? I know on a pitch, that if the ball gets lodged in the catcher's uniform, it's a dead ball and all runners get awarded one base. (at least in NFHS rules)
Is there a different rule for fielder's uniform. (or for pro/ncaa?)

Very curious as to what the ruling on that play was. (and try and watch the video if you can--above all--it's very entertaining)

Thanks

Josh

Josh,

The ruling in the pros is different from Federation rules, to a certain degree. The official interpretation is explained in the MLB Umpire's Manual. The ball is dead, no further outs can be obtained by the defense (outs made prior to the ball disappearing remain), and the umpires employ what we call "common sense and fair play" in placing the runner(s) based on if the ball had not disappeared in the first place.

Hope this helps, and yes, it was a strange play indeed.

Yes it helps and I agree that had the ball been fielded cleanly after the trap, that the runners still would have stayed at first and second. The only thing that I noticed is neither Eddings nor Demuth actually signaled that it was a dead ball.
Either way, thanks for getting back to me on this one!

Josh

I have a question. I don't think it's related to the rules of the runner per se , but it's something I've wondered. What's the average speed of someone running to base? I heard it's about 3.9 seconds. That's pretty fast...when I was younger, I was clocked at 5.1 seconds. I wonder how fast I'd be able to run now.

I've been told that I'm one of the fastest players on my softball team. It would be better if I could actually get on base, but once I'm on, I'm dangerous....

Hey Ump -

Did you catch the Red Sox/Nats game Tuesday? In it, Doug Mirabelli was standing on third when Kevin Youkilis hit a sharp grounder up the third base line. Mirabelli gets back to the bag with his toe on the bag and his heel just off of it in foul territory. The ball stays fair, makes a weird little hop and hits Mirabelli on the leg, winding up in fair territory. The ump calls it a foul. Did he blow the call? Or can it have hit the portion of his leg in foul territory and been foul. Seem to me that for it to hit him it must have travelled over a part of the bag, which makes it a fair ball, no?

Rick Reed did indeed make the correct call. The ball bounced foul and made contact with the part of the runner's foot that was in foul territory.

Had the ball been fair and hit the runner's foot in fair territory, it would have been a live ball, with the batter-runner safe at first, since there was no play made on him. Note that the ball is NOT live because it hit the runner in such an example. It's live for another reason. I'll leave it up to you to figure out why. wink

I was watching a game last week when a ball was hit down the third base line, and the third baseman (I think it was Mike Lowell)very deliberately kicked the ball into foul territory. The ball was moving very slowly and probably would have gone foul eventually. I just thought it was strange that he kicked the ball foul, and nobody on the field said anything. I can't imagine it'd be legal to deliberately push the ball into foul territory, but is it?

I know that managers and players can get fined for actions on the field, but do umpires ever get fined for some of their actions? I'm not talking about missed calls (as if umpires ever miss any close calls), but more for stupid stunts like...hmmm...throwing Dodgers baseball caps into the crowd?

These are questions that keep me up at night.

Justin

A player who kicks a ball that is in fair territory makes it a fair ball, even if the ball is kicked foul. If a ball is fair, we are not going to "say" anything; instead, we point fair. That might have been why you didn't "hear" anything. wink

A player is not permitted to intentionally deflect the course of a foul ball either, but this refers to certain situations involving the offense. For example, a runner or batter cannot intentionally deflect the course of a foul ball. This is interference. Now, this refers to situations where the ball is not obviously foul with no chance of becoming fair.

MLB umpires are subject to fines if we do something that deserves it. However, mistakes on the field are not subject to disciplinary action, as you guessed. We can be disciplined if we do something that MLB believes is unprofessional or unbecoming a Major League Umpire. I can't get into specifics, mainly because it's a complicated issue.