[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

You have often opined that the book cannot cover EVERYTHING (although the NCAA certainly tries). IMO, once booted, that same exception should apply (seems like Dave agrees), since the intent of the stated exception seems to be to not protect runners if interference might still be possible (which matches this definition), which isn't the case in this new case play.

Not my rule, just pointed it out because it is there and we cannot sit on it. It is there as a reference as it was an exception that allows the ball to stay live when hitting a runner or umpire and it was raised as a reason to award from the TOP.

If y'all remember, I tried to get a portion of this rule changed a couple years ago, but will address this in another thread.

Seems logical. By the same token, also seems like booting (if meaning muffing, not kicking) didn't do it, either. Leaves the accidental/incidental actions of the (protected without intent) runner to have done it. Without any rule or penalty applied to the runner in this case, I am more prone to going back to the batter than the fielder, since it seems more offense affiliated.

Also, not my clarification. Prior to July 2009, I would have considered any ball off the bat a "batted ball" until someone took control of it in some manner.

In this case, just because the ball went off the offense should be irrelevant, unless you want to play dodge ball. I just don't see how the runner can be brought into the case. While in most cases using the deflection off the runner would benefit the offense, I think that is one more situation that umpires would be quite inconsistant in "guessing", "justifying" and applying equally across the board. One of the reasons ASA moved away from the 1 & 1, one award for the IF, another from the OF, etc. to a standard 2 from the time of the release of the throw was to avoid inconsistency. Whether an umpire thinks it is fair or not, enforcing the rule at hand is the only thing that keeps us out of trouble. If the team wants to protest, no problem. That is why the system allows for it and we have a national staff.

Important side note!! For all those newer to this interaction, I want to make clear that Mike and I are friends and colleagues that enjoy these discussions on a purely academic level. Do not take our discussions as anything more than that. We most often agree, with very similar training; when we disagree, it is to advance the discussion, not to denigrate anything the other has stated.

Now, if we can just get Steve to drink some real beer. BTW, if you know anyone who has an empty bed in Shreveport, I'm looking.