Safe or Out

Ball is dead.  

Runner is out.

If, in the judgment of the umpire, the runner's interference prevented a double play, another out is declared.  

Ref:  Federation rule 8-4-2-g

If the runner is behind the SS, the runner is not out and the ball stays live.  If not, it's as Swampboy says.

Yes, that's how I read it.  Matadormike can clarify for us.

Thank You Swampboy you gave me the answer and the place to find it. The Umpire did say in his opinion they would have made a DP and called the batter out  Highly disagreed since the S/S had made three fielding errors already and the runner was fast  Seems at one time used to be  you never assume a DP or is that just for scorekeeping?

Just for scorekeeping. In umpiring you have to judge a double play. In this case the ball is dead when it hits him and a double play is highly unlikely. I would call the runner out and place the BR on first. To call the DP you have to judge he intentionally interfered to break up a DP, not likely in this case. 

Thank You Michael. This is what we all felt should have been called however the umpire

called the batter out ( base umpire) and we just could not understand why, the S/S was drawn in since bases were loaded and only one out and the runner stopped as to stutter step and go behind the S/S and not run into him when the ball struck his ankle  No intention on his part to mess up the defensive player.We were ahead 13-4 and Coach considered  protesting the play thinking it was a misinterpatation on the Umpires part on the rule, but as Swampboy has pointed out it is a judegment call in how he made it, just was very disagreeable call. We rarely get upset on a call, but this took us out of the inning with our best batter coming up with a .667 BA through 7 games  Love this site I will use it more often

Michael,

This play took place in HS ball, and is presumably played under NFHS rules.  "Intentional" matters in OBR, but not in FED.  Casebook 8.4.2E supports two outs here, because the defense could have (not "would have') executed a double play.  Generally, if an infielder would have been able to cleanly field the ball (absent it striking a runner), a double play is called.  At least that's the case in this part of California.

This is a result of FED's "lowest common umpire" philosophy. Many FED rules are designed to take discretion out of calls, so that the enforcement is simpler.

I forgot the R1, If there had been a R2 then I say no DP, R1 then I can see the caseplay being relevant. 

So, I have a similar situation I need to clarify... R2 leading off, ball is grounded to SS. R2 turns to run to 3B "in the base path" and shoves SS out of his way, causing SS to boot the ground ball.  I was under the impression that "in the base path" was irrelevant in an instance like this because the defender has as much right to make the play on the ball.  So should R2 be called out for interference and BR is awarded 1B?

You are more or less correct (right idea but imprecise terminology) about the base bath.  The rule saying a runner is out for running more than three feet from the direct line between bases to avoid being tagged has an exception that permits a runner to run behind a fielder attempting to field the ball to avoid interfering with him.

What you describe is interference, and "shoves SS out of the way" sounds like malicious contact, too.  Ball is dead.  R2 is out--and ejected if malicious contact called.  

BR is placed at first base unless umpire rules the interference prevented a double play.  

I couldn't tell from your description if R2 was the only runner.  (Was he running because he was clueless or because he was forced to?)

If R2 was the only runner, more than likely the interference just kept him from being thrown out at third, so BR would be placed at first as if the fielder's choice had occurred.  If there was a runner on first or if the umpire thought the shortstop could have fielded the ball and tagged R2 in time to make the throw to first (unlikely, but theoretically possible), the umpire could rule the interference prevented a double play and call BR out.

There was no runner on first, R2 was attempting to advance to 3B on contact (only 1 out in the inning).  As he squared to advance, his left hip was in-line with the SS backside and R2 had to lean to shove the SS.  SS booted the ball, but still had a play and got the ball to F3 late.  Coach sent R2 home on the throw, and he was out by several steps.

Interesting you mentioned malicious contact though, my C said that as R2 tried to go through him (didn't slide or try to avoid contact), R2 attempted to rip the glove and ball off C's hand.  This kid has a bad history with our team, and is always trying junk like this.  We just chalked it up to who he was and played on.

Thanks for the response Swampboy!  

Nothing of what you described there seems like maliciouos contact to me but it should have been interference of course.  The protected fielder has a nearly unlimited right to the position to field the batted ball and the runner has the obligation to avoid.

There have been a lot of discussions on other boards on exactly what "malicious contact" means because the term is not defined in the Fed rule book.  More experienced umpires I've asked said it's a subjective call and they consider whether the contact was unnecessary, or if necessary whether the force was excessive, and how intentional it seemed the unnecessary contact or excessive force seemed to be.  That's not gospel.  It's just how experienced umpires apply the term.  

In this case, the base runner deviated from his course to shove a fielder from behind hard enough to knock him over.  Obviously it would depend on what I saw, but it sounds intentional, unnecessary, and excessive. 

In the situation described by gcimatt, HTBT to determine malicious contact, but R2 was certainly acting like an a$$hole, and eminently dumpable.

Yes you could go with that and certainly a good umpire is going to be paying closer attention to what R2 does the rest of the game and even later in the year if he has that team again -- and umpires do talk so maybe another umpire will get the chance to dump the little b$$$ard.

Oh, and somewhere along the line FED has defined MC as something like "intent to injure" and that's why I don't see it in the play as originally described.  Some areas of course have a more stricter interpretation of that and get MC more often that other areas.

I don't think that R2 was trying to hurt anyone. He was being a jerk, and is almost every time we play against a team he is on.  I do appreciate you gentlemen offering your insight and experience in these situations!