ASA Runner hit by batted ball

S

swampdonkey1

Star Player
ASA State with 2 umpires, runner on 2nd base. The batter hits a liner to our pitcher who tips the ball with his glove, the ball does not change course and is not slowed down by the pitcher. The runner on 2nd jumps up off the base and it struck with the ball. Our 5 man is playing 2 feet behind the base with his glove out ready to easily catch the line drive for the out, but can't make the play. Umpire behind the plate calls ''dead ball'' moments later as the runner from 2nd is advancing to 3rd and our 5 man is throwing the ball to 1st to get the batter/runner out.

Umpires discuss the call for minutes and decide to put the batter on 1st, and leave the runner at 2nd base and give the defense no outs on the play.

Someone please explain what happened. We were told the umpire behind the plate should not have called ''dead ball'', so they let the batter take first and proceeded with the game. They did not address what the call should have been before the dead ball was called.
 
NCASAUmp

NCASAUmp

Un-Retired
Since the ball was deflected by a defensive player (and that includes the pitcher) before striking the runner, the correct ruling would have been to keep the ball live without penalty. However, the umpire incorrectly killed the play, and once you kill it, you can't "unring the ball" and make the ball live again.

Sounds to me like the umpire did the right thing by not declaring anyone out, keeping the runner at second base, and giving the batter-runner first base. You can't guess what the defense would've done, nor can you guess whether they would have been successful at getting the out.

Sorry, guys. That's as good as we can make it.
 
I

irishmafia

Addicted to Softballfans
swampdonkey1 said:
ASA State with 2 umpires, runner on 2nd base. The batter hits a liner to our pitcher who tips the ball with his glove, the ball does not change course and is not slowed down by the pitcher. The runner on 2nd jumps up off the base and it struck with the ball. Our 5 man is playing 2 feet behind the base with his glove out ready to easily catch the line drive for the out, but can't make the play. Umpire behind the plate calls ''dead ball'' moments later as the runner from 2nd is advancing to 3rd and our 5 man is throwing the ball to 1st to get the batter/runner out.

Umpires discuss the call for minutes and decide to put the batter on 1st, and leave the runner at 2nd base and give the defense no outs on the play.

Someone please explain what happened. We were told the umpire behind the plate should not have called ''dead ball'', so they let the batter take first and proceeded with the game. They did not address what the call should have been before the dead ball was called.
Click to expand...

What does the highlighted statement mean? If he literally jumped up to hit the ball, it is INT. If the umpire judged the defense could have made routine catch, the batter-runner is also ruled out
 
NCASAUmp

NCASAUmp

Un-Retired
It sounds to me that the runner was hit by a deflected ball that he couldn't avoid, but tried to.
 
S

swampdonkey1

Star Player
The runner jumped intending to get out of the way off the ball, but it hit him square in the stomach. My thought was that since the runner while off the base directly interfered with the 5 man making a play on the ball that the runner should be called out and the batter get 1st base. I guess the umpires made the correct incorrect call after all...

Thanks for your help
 
NCASAUmp

NCASAUmp

Un-Retired
swampdonkey1 said:
The runner jumped intending to get out of the way off the ball, but it hit him square in the stomach. My thought was that since the runner while off the base directly interfered with the 5 man making a play on the ball that the runner should be called out and the batter get 1st base. I guess the umpires made the correct incorrect call after all...

Thanks for your help
Click to expand...

If the batted ball has been deflected by a defensive player (including the pitcher), then the only way an interference call should be made is if the runner either A) intentionally made contact or B) could have very easily avoided it, but didn't.

If he couldn't avoid getting hit, then I have nothing, even though he jumped. Rule citation: 8-7-J-4.
 
I

irishmafia

Addicted to Softballfans
swampdonkey1 said:
The runner jumped intending to get out of the way off the ball, but it hit him square in the stomach. My thought was that since the runner while off the base directly interfered with the 5 man making a play on the ball that the runner should be called out and the batter get 1st base. I guess the umpires made the correct incorrect call after all...

Thanks for your help
Click to expand...

I'm still trying to reconcile a runner "jumping up" to avoid being hit by a line drive that in spite of the contact with the pitcher's glove did not change direction or velocity and hit him in the stomach.
 
Joker

Joker

Well-Known Member
irishmafia said:
I'm still trying to reconcile a runner "jumping up" to avoid being hit by a line drive that in spite of the contact with the pitcher's glove did not change direction or velocity and hit him in the stomach.
Click to expand...
it's a natural reaction, stop overthinking this
 
NCASAUmp

NCASAUmp

Un-Retired
irishmafia said:
I'm still trying to reconcile a runner "jumping up" to avoid being hit by a line drive that in spite of the contact with the pitcher's glove did not change direction or velocity and hit him in the stomach.
Click to expand...

You're giving players too much credit for rational thought. :D
 
I

irishmafia

Addicted to Softballfans
Joker said:
it's a natural reaction, stop overthinking this
Click to expand...

No, a natural reaction would be to move in a direction away from the path of the ball, not into it. If it hit him in the stomach, that would mean it probably hit him in the upper torso or head if he didn't move.

Unlike players, umpires are paid to "think" about it. :)
 
S

swampdonkey1

Star Player
I'm not impartial in this scenario, but I thought the runner had a duty to avoid contact with the ball when off the base, and if he was hit by a ball that interfered with the defense making a play then it is interference. I wasn't aware that if the ball was touched this duty by the runner was no longer an issue. It still sounds shaky to me that it comes down to umpire discretion after the ball has been tipped...
 
NCASAUmp

NCASAUmp

Un-Retired
irishmafia said:
No, a natural reaction would be to move in a direction away from the path of the ball, not into it. If it hit him in the stomach, that would mean it probably hit him in the upper torso or head if he didn't move.

Unlike players, umpires are paid to "think" about it. :)
Click to expand...

And if you judge that it was either intentional or very easily avoidable, then you can certainly call interference. If he's on second base, he may only have about 50 feet of reaction time to judge where that ball's going.

I'm leaning towards this being unintentional and unavoidable. Live ball, play on.
 
Joker

Joker

Well-Known Member
irishmafia said:
No, a natural reaction would be to move in a direction away from the path of the ball, not into it. If it hit him in the stomach, that would mean it probably hit him in the upper torso or head if he didn't move.

Unlike players, umpires are paid to "think" about it. :)
Click to expand...
have you been hit with a ball while standing on 2nd base before when you have very little time to react?

and this guy had the vertical of jordan to move his stomach to where his head was? your "thinking" is terrible
 
I

irishmafia

Addicted to Softballfans
NCASAUmp said:
And if you judge that it was either intentional or very easily avoidable, then you can certainly call interference. If he's on second base, he may only have about 50 feet of reaction time to judge where that ball's going.
Click to expand...

More like 98' since the OP clearly states the ball did not change direction or speed.
 
NCASAUmp

NCASAUmp

Un-Retired
irishmafia said:
More like 98' since the OP clearly states the ball did not change direction or speed.
Click to expand...

I'm saying that the pitcher could have blocked his view, but I don't think it matters. Unless I'm certain that he A) did it intentionally or B) had more than enough time to avoid getting hit, I do not have interference here.
 
I

irishmafia

Addicted to Softballfans
NCASAUmp said:
I'm saying that the pitcher could have blocked his view, but I don't think it matters. Unless I'm certain that he A) did it intentionally or B) had more than enough time to avoid getting hit, I do not have interference here.
Click to expand...

Please note, I never stated it should be INT, just noted that it could have been ruled such based on the reaction of the runner
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top