Ask Hal, the Referee

[Benjamin Grimm]

Hal Lebovitz, a Hall-of-Fame sportswriter, was the author of the Ask Hal, the Referee column, which ran in The Sporting News as well as The Cleveland Plain Dealer. Lebovitz died in 2005 at the age of 89.

I thought it might be a fun off-season diversion to dig up some of the old questions and answers from Hal's columns. What I'll do is post a question from a reader and we can all try to come up with the right answer. Approximately 24 hours later I'll post Hal's answer. (I'm not guaranteeing it's the correct answer. Hal could have been wrong, or the rules may have changed in the 30 or so years since the column appeared.)

I'll keep this thread going, with another question following each answer, as long as we seem to be interested in it.

Let's get started, with a question from 1976:

http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p276/umdb/Misc/askHal.jpg

="Thomas E. Prell, Lombard, Ill."]Major league baseball, runner on first and third, one out, tie game, late innings, obvious double-play situation. In an effort to break up the double play, does the runner on first have the right not to run toward second, staying in the base path near first and either obscuring the first baseman from seeing the relay throw or even getting hit by the ball? Therefore, the runner would be safe at first and the runner at third perhaps scoring the winning run. Smart baseball? Interference? Or What?

[Guest AG/DC]

My understanding was that, when Reggie Jackson allowed the relay throw to hit him in the World Series, he was not within his rights, but the umps blew the call.

As far as obscuring the firstbaseman, i guess he can stand there and let it whiz past his ear, as long as he isn't flailing about.

The general principle as I understand it is that the fielder has to yield to the runner, but the runner has to yield to the ball.

Edited October 20, 2008 by Guest

[metirish]

If the hitter gets the hit doesn't the guy on first have to try and advance?

[Benjamin Grimm]

He's not allowed to stay at first base, but the question is, does he have to run to second?

[soupcan]

I would say that as long as he stays in the baseline and does not go out of his way to interefere with the ball then he can do whatever he wants.

[metirish]

I think the runner on first must make an attempt to run(Go) to second , I do not think the runner has the right to not run towards second.

[Fman99]

="soupcan

pbzovdft]I would say that as long as he stays in the baseline and does not go out of his way to interefere with the ball then he can do whatever he wants.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

Love this. We used to get together and play the "Ask Hal" game with the guys in my dorm.

I'm gonna say interference for messing with the throw. It's his right to hold up between the bases but not to interfere with the ball.

[HahnSolo]

="metirish>3l38nl2o]I think the runner on first must make an attempt to run(Go) to second , I do not think the runner has the right to not run towards second.

3l38nl2o]

I think Irish is right. I seem to remember a play this year involving the Astros where the runner did not move off first on a ground ball, and discussion got around to the rulebook. IIRC, once the ball is in play on the ground, the runner at first must make an advancement to second.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Here's Hal's answer to our first question:

http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p276/umdb/Misc/askHal.jpg

="Thomas E. Prell, Lombard, Ill."]Major league baseball, runner on first and third, one out, tie game, late innings, obvious double-play situation. In an effort to break up the double play, does the runner on first have the right not to run toward second, staying in the base path near first and either obscuring the first baseman from seeing the relay throw or even getting hit by the ball? Therefore, the runner would be safe at first and the runner at third perhaps scoring the winning run. Smart baseball? Interference? Or What?

="Hal the Referee"] The runner has the right to the base line on a thrown ball. As long as the runner who wsa on first doesn't wave his arms or commit any other obvious act of interference, it is perfectly legal for him to stand there. It's up to the fielder to throw around him, which is really no problem, for it's done all the time -- as on attempted pickoffs. Remember, a good first baseman knows how to stretch for the ball. Smart baseball? It isn't dumb.

Next:

="Tom Sekelsky, Wilcox, Pa."]I have only witnessed the following situation once and I happened to be a player in the game. Runners on second and third and one out. Fly ball to left field and both runners tag. After both runners moved up a base, an appeal was made at second base and the runner was ruled out for leaving before the catch was made. The umpires ruled that the runner from third scored. My manager said the run should not count. The league protest committee ruled in my manager's favor, saying the run did not count. The game was replayed from that point on. Who was right, the game umpires or the protest committee? I also find it amazing that of the hundreds of games I have seen or played, this situation has happened but once.

[Frayed Knot]

The out is not a force play but rather an after-the-fact play so the run should count.

[soupcan]

="Hal the Referee"] The runner has the right to the base line on a thrown ball. As long as the runner who wsa on first doesn't wave his arms or commit any other obvious act of interference, it is perfectly legal for him to stand there. It's up to the fielder to throw around him, which is really no problem, for it's done all the time -- as on attempted pickoffs. Remember, a good first baseman knows how to stretch for the ball. Smart baseball? It isn't dumb.

If irish the Irishman had been right and I was wrong I would have seriously considered moving to Canada.

[soupcan]

="Tom Sekelsky, Wilcox, Pa.

29ios96u]I have only witnessed the following situation once and I happened to be a player in the game. Runners on second and third and one out. Fly ball to left field and both runners tag. After both runners moved up a base, an appeal was made at second base and the runner was ruled out for leaving before the catch was made. The umpires ruled that the runner from third scored. My manager said the run should not count. The league protest committee ruled in my manager's favor, saying the run did not count. The game was replayed from that point on. Who was right, the game umpires or the protest committee? I also find it amazing that of the hundreds of games I have seen or played, this situation has happened but once.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

Yeah, I think the stuffed shirts at the Rules Committee blew this one.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Okay, that one was too easy. Let's try a tricky one.


http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p276/umdb/Misc/askHal.jpg

First, Hal's answer to Tom Sekelsky:

="Hal the Referee"]The umpires were right and the protest committee was completely off base in its ruling. The run counts because it was scored when there were only two outs. The only time a run doesn't count is when it scored on a play in which the third out is on a force or ont he batter before he reaches first base. Tom, this play happens often, even though it was new to you. But this is the first time, to my knowledge, a protest committee blew this basic play. I hope it's the last. I hope, too, the umpires gave the committee a rules book for Christmas.

Now:

="James P. Halloran, Omaha, Neb."]Several years ago, a friend was telling how a team could receive credit for an unassisted triple play without touching the ball. I know it involves a pop-up, but I can't remember the rest. Have you heard this one and can you tell me how it can happen?

Hal does come up with a scenario in which this can happen.

[metirish]

="soupcan"] ="Hal the Referee"] The runner has the right to the base line on a thrown ball. As long as the runner who wsa on first doesn't wave his arms or commit any other obvious act of interference, it is perfectly legal for him to stand there. It's up to the fielder to throw around him, which is really no problem, for it's done all the time -- as on attempted pickoffs. Remember, a good first baseman knows how to stretch for the ball. Smart baseball? It isn't dumb. If irish the Irishman had been right and I was wrong I would have seriously considered moving to Canada.

You know people get in trouble for saying such things during election time , eh?

[metirish]

Benjamin Grimm: Now: James P. Halloran, Omaha, Neb.: Several years ago, a friend was telling how a team could receive credit for an unassisted triple play without touching the ball. I know it involves a pop-up, but I can't remember the rest. Have you heard this one and can you tell me how it can happen? Hal does come up with a scenario in which this can happen.

The pop-up is dropped a few times before
the play is made ?....sorry if I sound clueless.

[Guest AG/DC]

Infield fly with the bases loaded. The umpire calls the batter out. The oblivious runners on first and second both are advancing at their own risk and pass the runner on third who is scratching hiis head.

The fielder closest to the ball when it lands gets credit for the three putouts, I reckon.

[Benjamin Grimm]

No fielder touches the ball, metirish.

[Centerfield]

Just a guess here, but runners on first and second (or bases loaded). Line drive hit to a fielder, the baserunner fails to yield to the fielder and gets called for interference. The batter would be out by way of interference, then the runners called out as they would, in the umpire's judgment, not been able to get back to their original bases.

[Gwreck]

AG/DC: Infield fly with the bases loaded. The umpire calls the batter out. The oblivious runners on first and second both are advancing at their own risk and pass the runner on third who is scratching his head. The fielder closest to the ball when it lands gets credit for the three putouts, I reckon.

I think the fielder closest to the passed runner also has to be the fielder closest to where the pop up lands,
so it would be a popup near the third baseman. But otherwise yes, I think that's right.

[soupcan]

I'm clueless on this one.

Irish - I was just pissing on you.

[metirish]

soupcan: I'm clueless on this one. Irish - I was just pissing on you.

I knew that man......dying over here.

[Frayed Knot]

Buck Showalter claimed on a BB2N show earlier this year that he was managing in the minors when this sort of play actually happened!

If I recall his details correctly it was an infield fly so the batter was out, then one runner passed the other,
then as the ball landed untouched it bounced and hit one of the other runners in fair territory.



On edit: Recounted here

As Buck said on the show; 'try calling THAT one into team headquarters the next day'

[Benjamin Grimm]

http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p276/umdb/Misc/askHal.jpg

Hal's answer to James P. Halloran:

="Hal the Referee"]I haven't heard it, but theoretically it could occur this way: let's say the bases are loaded and the batter lifts a high fly between home and third. The runner from first, losing sight of the ball, is off and running. He passes the runner who is on second. One out. The runner on third moves off his base a few feet and stands there. The fly hits him on the head. He's out -- and how. The batter is out because it's an infield fly. There you have it. Three outs with the ball untouched by human hands.

Now:

="Ted Whitcomb, El Centro, Calif."]Professional baseball: A runner is on third base with one out and is the potential winning run. A short fly is hit to the outfield and runner attempts to score. He wants a jogging lead, so as the ball is in the air, he takes a few steps away from third and toward second. The runner times it so that the catch is made as he streaks by third. In doing so, he touches the bag simultaneously with the catch. Was this a legal play? Was the runner allowed those few steps so he could get a faster start from third? Have you seen this play attempted?

[soupcan]

Ted Whitcomb, El Centro, Calif.: Professional baseball: A runner is on third base with one out and is the potential winning run. A short fly is hit to the outfield and runner attempts to score. He wants a jogging lead, so as the ball is in the air, he takes a few steps away from third and toward second. The runner times it so that the catch is made as he streaks by third. In doing so, he touches the bag simultaneously with the catch. Was this a legal play? Was the runner allowed those few steps so he could get a faster start from third? Have you seen this play attempted?

I would say that I don't see anything wrong with it but its risky as it would most definitely be appealed and left to the ump's judgement whether or not the runner hit the base after the catch.

That being said, I'll guess that its not a legal play. The running start thing smells fishy.

Hal the Referee:I haven't heard it, but theoretically it could occur this way: let's say the bases are loaded and the batter lifts a high fly between home and third. The runner from first, losing sight of the ball, is off and running. He passes the runner who is on second. One out. The runner on third moves off his base a few feet and stands there. The fly hits him on the head. He's out -- and how. The batter is out because it's an infield fly. There you have it. Three outs with the ball untouched by human hands.

Hmmmmm. Very suspicious that Hal came up with a scenario that years later Showalter said happened in exactly the same way. I call 'bullshit' on Buck.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Looks like we've already grown tired of playing "Ask Hal"

I'll post the answer to this question tomorrow. I have a few more questions and answers ready to go. Maybe I'll wait until we're deeper into the offseason.

[Guest AG/DC]

There was a player who backed up down the third-base line to get a running start. I believe (based on Kiner's stories) that a rule was imput to disallow the use of this strategy. Whether that involves backing up toward second is another story.

It seems like it should be legal, but I'm going to guess no, because rulemakers tamp down on innovation.

Edited October 23, 2008 by Guest

[metirish]

I would think it's not legal , guys should be on the base , in front of the base or to the side of it but they can't be behind it. At least I don't think they should be.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

I am stumped on this, but my instinct is to say it's probably illegal.