Baseball question-what if a runner gets hit?

So the batter steps up and thwacks the ball a mighty thwack, sending it flying into the outfield. He’s off and running, passes first, when by some unfortunate chance the ball, when thrown back in by an outfielder anxious to get him out, smacks into his head, knocking him out. It’s obviously a weird accident-what happens next? And has this ever happened, perhaps instead by the first-baseman throwing to second?

If he is hit by the ball from the bat he is out.

If he is hit by a thrown ball and is knocked out he again would be out (with a tag).

To clarify this…

If a runner is hit by a thrown ball, he is not out, and the ball is still in play*. If the runner is knocked out by said ball, then presumably they would quickly be tagged out by a fielder once the ball was retrieved (unless they were lucky enough to fall directly on the bag after losing consciousness).

  • this assumes that the runner did not deliberately interfere with the throw. If, in the umpire’s judgement, the runner interfered, he is out and the ball is dead.

This would be obstruction. Unless an intentional act by the runner causes the hit, it is obstruction by the defense. If it was an intententional act by the runner, such as jumping in front of the ball, it would be interference by the offense, and the runner would be out. If it is obstruction, and a play is being made on the runner, the play would end immediatly. Otherwise, the play would continue until all actions concluded, such as other runners continuing on to reach bases. Then there would be a timeout. The umpire would decide how to award bases which would have been reached if the obstruction had not occurred. If the player hit by the ball cannot continue, a substitute will be brought in.

For further reference

The situation described in the OP is actually pretty common. It’s a normal thing for a fielder to throw the ball to a base at the same time that a runner is trying to reach that base, and often the result is that the throw hits the runner. Play just continues; no rule has been broken, so if the runner reaches the base before the fielder can tag him he is safe. I’ve never seen obstruction called in cases like that; the only time I have seen that is when a fielder stands in the runner’s way so that he can’t run directly to the base.

Moving from General Questions to The Game Room–all about sports, gaming, etc.

samclem Moderator, GQ

I believe this would be the applicable rule:

The key phrase in 7.08b is He intentionally interferes with a thrown ball. In my judgement as an umpire, the scenario described is not intentional interference. The runner is focused on advancing to second base. The thrown ball hit him by coincidence, not by intentional action on his part. The ball is still in play, and if a defensive player picks it up and tags the unconscious runner, he is called out.

7.06a and 7.06b are the relevant rules, so long as there is no intentional interference by the runner.

Yeah, this happens what, once a game on average? 99% of the time, the runner getting hit by the throw will have no idea where the ball is, so they couldn’t be expected to avoid it.

Yep. 99% of the time it’s a throw from first to second (or second to third) because of an error or bobble. The ball is coming from behind the runner, so there is no way they can deliberately interfere with the throw. They were just trying for the base.

Here’s the definition given in Rule 2.00:

The fielder who threw the ball in this scenario obviously had possession of it when he took the action, so it doesn’t sound like obstruction applies.

I’m going to buck the collective wisdom of this board (which usually gets me shot down) and point out that the rules don’t actually mention what happens should the runner be knocked unconsious — which is highly unlikely, by the way — and the umpires may invoke rule 9.01© which reads

It would be possible that the umpire would award the runner the next base if he felt the runner would have arrived safely had he not been knock out.

I actually played in a game where a player was knocked out by a ball. He got hit in the head by a pitched ball, and seemed OK. He started jogging to first base, and halfway there he started leaning toward the dugout and started running in ever-shortening circles (like a frisbee on it’s side) until he fell down. The umpire allowed a pinch runner to start at first base even though the original player never made it there.

The player was fine afterward.

After a hit batsman, the ball is dead and a substitution may be made. In fact it happens reasonably often that a hit player is taken out for a pinch runner before he gets to first. It is also permissible to put in a pinch runner for a batter who hits an out-of the park home run or a ground rule double if for example he tripped over first base and sprained his ankle (how embarrassing). The batter doesn’t have to make it to those bases first.

But when a thrown ball hits the runner it is live and no substitutions may be made until the ball is dead.

I remember watching a movie about Babe Ruth where they showed him only running to first after hitting a home run, and having someone else run the rest of the way.

I’m too tired to research the rule book, but there was a famous play in college women’s softball where a woman hit her first ever homerun that would have won the game for her team in the playoffs. She tore her ACL rounding first base, and the ruling was that she could not have a pinch runner or have assistance from her teammates. She had to complete the baserunning or be declared out.

Her opponents decided to carry her around the bases, lowering her good leg to touch every base, so she got the HR and won the game.

(I guess after watching that it wasn’t a game-winner.)

Better video with context: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ttkBP2XDZvE&feature=related

It was definitely a game-winner in terms of sportsmanship.

College softball rules must be different from MLB rules. In MLB, the umpire would have allowed a pinch runner to complete the home run. Here’s the rule:

I note that rule does not cover the OP’s situation. So unless that situation is covered elsewhere, I’m going to stand by my 9.01(c) belief until shown otherwise.