Runners Safe or Out?

[Battle]

Agreed but it goes further than that. I've seen the ball go between the IF legs and hit the runner with an out called and nobody argues. It's as though everyone is in agreement. If they do argue, it's whether or not the ball touched the IF. What? It doesn't matter if it touched the IF. She had a play on the ball.

Why is this rule so lost?

Whether IF touched the ball does matter since that is covered under a different rule for deflections.

How does that apply here?

Look again - I highlighted the applicable part in bold. Sheesh...

...and I highlighted the play in question in red. If the runner was called out wouldn't it be safe to assume that the ump didn't see/think the ball hit the IF so there was no deflection? It might have grazed the IF at best but didn't cause a redirection of the ball. Therefore again, how do you see this rule being applied to this play?

[PDad]

Agreed but it goes further than that. I've seen the ball go between the IF legs and hit the runner with an out called and nobody argues. It's as though everyone is in agreement. If they do argue, it's whether or not the ball touched the IF. What? It doesn't matter if it touched the IF. She had a play on the ball.

Why is this rule so lost?

Whether IF touched the ball does matter since that is covered under a different rule for deflections.

How does that apply here?

Look again - I highlighted the applicable part in bold. Sheesh...

...and I highlighted the play in question in red. If the runner was called out wouldn't it be safe to assume that the ump didn't see/think that the ball hit the IF so there was no deflection? It might have grazed the IF at best but didn't cause a redirection of the ball. Therefore again, how do you see this rule being applied to this play?

I wasn't applying it "to this play" - I was correcting your erroneous general statement "It doesn't matter if it touched the IF."

[Battle]

Agreed but it goes further than that. I've seen the ball go between the IF legs and hit the runner with an out called and nobody argues. It's as though everyone is in agreement. If they do argue, it's whether or not the ball touched the IF. What? It doesn't matter if it touched the IF. She had a play on the ball.

Why is this rule so lost?

Whether IF touched the ball does matter since that is covered under a different rule for deflections.

How does that apply here?

Look again - I highlighted the applicable part in bold. Sheesh...

...and I highlighted the play in question in red. If the runner was called out wouldn't it be safe to assume that the ump didn't see/think that the ball hit the IF so there was no deflection? It might have grazed the IF at best but didn't cause a redirection of the ball. Therefore again, how do you see this rule being applied to this play?

I wasn't applying it "to this play" - I was correcting your erroneous general statement "It doesn't matter if it touched the IF."

Well good grief, of course it matters on a play where the rule could be in play but in this play for the offensive coach to argue that it touched an IF really doesn't. Unless he can win that argument and he probably can't since the ump didn't see it that way, he can win with the play on the ball if the other ump knows the rule...maybe?. That's all I was saying.
The deflection rule could be the difference of two bases advanced or runs scored. Am I correct?

[PDad]

So lets say the ball hit the runner and went into no mans land where the runner on 3rd would've scored and the runner on 2nd would be on 3rd. It's called a dead ball with R1 out but clear that the IF had a play on the ball. What is the proper way to approach the umpires or appeal respectfully? Can it be appealed?

There's no provision if the infielder whiffs on a batted ball where they had a play.

There's also no provision for batted balls where nobody has a play on it (e.g. up the middle).

What do you mean by "provision"?

Definition of provision

1 ...
3 :proviso, stipulation

Whether the infielder the ball passed had a play doesn't matter - only for other fielders whose play was interfered with by runner contacting ball. Look at NFHS rule again:

Runner is Out if...
ART. 11 . . . The runner is struck with a fair untouched batted ball while not in contact with a base
and before it passes an infielder, excluding the pitcher,
or if it passes an infielder and any fielder has an opportunity to make an out.

In your OP, only whether F7 had a play would matter if ball passed both F5 and F6 before it hit runner. If the ball only passed F5 before contact with runner, it would depend on whether F6 or F7 had a play (i.e. opportunity to make an out). Whether F5 had a play doesn't matter either way. Your "appeal" should focus on whether another fielder had a play.

[PDad]

NFHS rule isn't worded clearly on it being another fielder that had a play like ASA/USA and NCAA. Here are NCAA rules:

12.17 Hit by a Batted Ball
An umpire or runner is considered hit by a batted ball when the ball contacts his or her person, attached equipment or clothing:
12.17.1 When an umpire, or a runner not in contact with a base, is struck by a fair untouched batted ball after it has passed a fielder (other than the pitcher), and, in the judgment of the umpire, no other fielder had a reasonable chance to make a play.
12.17.2 When an umpire, or a runner not in contact with a base, is unavoidably struck by a fair batted ball after touching a fielder (including the pitcher).
EFFECT—(12.17.1 and 12.17.2)—The ball is live. The batter becomes a batter-runner and advances with liability to be put out. Each runner may advance with liability to be put out, whether forced or not.
Note: Any ball that touches the umpire or runner while still in flight is considered a ground ball and cannot be caught as a fly ball.

12.17.4 When a runner is struck by a fair untouched batted ball while not in contact with a base and:
12.17.4.1 Before the ball touches a fielder, including the pitcher;
12.17.4.2 Before the ball passes a fielder, excluding the pitcher; or
12.17.4.3 After passing a fielder, excluding the pitcher, and another fielder had a reasonable chance to make a play.
EFFECT—(12.17.4.1 to 12.17.4.3)—The ball is dead, and the runner is out. The batter-runner is awarded first base. If the official scorer judges the batted ball would have been a hit, the batter is credited with a base hit, but if not, it is scored as a fielder’s choice. Each base runner not forced by the batter-runner must return to the last base legally touched at the time of the interference.

[Battle]

NFHS rule isn't worded clearly on it being another fielder that had a play. Here are NCAA rules:

12.17 Hit by a Batted Ball
An umpire or runner is considered hit by a batted ball when the ball contacts his or her person, attached equipment or clothing:
12.17.1 When an umpire, or a runner not in contact with a base, is struck by a fair untouched batted ball after it has passed a fielder (other than the pitcher), and, in the judgment of the umpire, no other fielder had a reasonable chance to make a play.
12.17.2 When an umpire, or a runner not in contact with a base, is unavoidably struck by a fair batted ball after touching a fielder (including the pitcher).
EFFECT—(12.17.1 and 12.17.2)—The ball is live. The batter becomes a batter-runner and advances with liability to be put out. Each runner may advance with liability to be put out, whether forced or not.
Note: Any ball that touches the umpire or runner while still in flight is considered a ground ball and cannot be caught as a fly ball.

12.17.4 When a runner is struck by a fair untouched batted ball while not in contact with a base and:
12.17.4.1 Before the ball touches a fielder, including the pitcher;
12.17.4.2 Before the ball passes a fielder, excluding the pitcher; or
12.17.4.3 After passing a fielder, excluding the pitcher, and another fielder had a reasonable chance to make a play.
EFFECT—(12.17.4.1 to 12.17.4.3)—The ball is dead, and the runner is out. The batter-runner is awarded first base. If the official scorer judges the batted ball would have been a hit, the batter is credited with a base hit, but if not, it is scored as a fielder’s choice. Each base runner not forced by the batter-runner must return to the last base legally touched at the time of the interference.

That is interesting. The word "another" really makes this rule kind of complicated. That's why I asked if it was worded the same for all sanctions.

[PDad]

That is interesting. The word "another" really makes this rule kind of complicated. That's why I asked if it was worded the same for all sanctions.

Despite unclear wording, NFHS rule is interpreted same as clearly worded ASA/USA and NCAA rules. You should know that umpires don't go strictly by the rule book - official clarifications and interpretations take precedence.

Under which sanction/rules was game played?

[Battle]

That is interesting. The word "another" really makes this rule kind of complicated. That's why I asked if it was worded the same for all sanctions.

Despite unclear wording, NFHS rule is interpreted same as clearly worded ASA/USA and NCAA rules. You should know that umpires don't go strictly by the rule book - official clarifications and interpretations take precedence.

Under which sanction/rules was game played?

ASA I believe. I was just remembering back when....Which leads me to ask has the rule ever changed since 2004? Has it always been worded this way?

[Battle]

I actually coached a game where a 4th and 5th out appeal came into play. Unfortunately the Little League umpires had no idea about the appropriate application of the rules so two runs scored. We won the game anyway but it reinforced my dedication to learning the rules of our game.

There is no doubt that the runner hit by batted ball after passing an infielder and no other player has a play is one of the most missed applied calls in softball when it occurs. I hope strong umpires can coach managers when they can on the application of rules in the hope that in games that count, everyone knows the rules in play.

I would like to know the scenario behind this play if you have time.

...or if MrGeek has one.

[PDad]

I was just remembering back when....Which leads me to ask has the rule ever changed since 2004? Has it always been worded this way?

I think it's more likely your memory has changed than the rule.

IIRC, it's been that way since at least 2006/2007 when I looked into it.

While MTR is the historian on rules - especially for ASA, I expect old-timers like UmpSteve can provide perspective.