[ozzy6900]

Originally Posted by David Emerling

I found situation #3 particularly interesting:
Baseball rules corner: here's a quiz to test your knowledge of the rulebook - Brief Article | Baseball Digest | Find Articles

It says:

3. With Darin Erstad on second base for the Angels, a wild pitch eludes Toronto catcher Darrin Fletcher. The ball bounces toward the backstop and near the Blue Jays' ball boy. Trying to get out of the way, he accidentally kicks the ball and the runner takes an extra base to score. The umpire properly allows the play to stand. True or False?

Although the interpretation does not involve a player, I'm wondering if the philosophy holds true to players.

3. False. Even though the interference was accidental, a "kick" is considered intentional and the extra-base advance is nullified. Erstad should be returned to third. (3.15).

The reason I asked this question in the first place is because, somewhere in the recesses of my mind, I recall some interpretation like this - that if a player "kicks" a live ball, it is always considered intentional because it is too easy to mask an intentional kick with a seemingly "accidental", natural running motion. So, no matter how "accidental" it may have seemed - the fact of the matter is that runner kicked the ball as opposed to the ball simply hitting the runner. The runner actively did something.

But, like I said, I'm not sure of this.

You guys seem to think that, despite the runner "kicking" the ball, the umpire can still rule it as "accidental". OK - that seems reasonable enough.

1. A runner high tailing it down to 1st base gets tangled with the ball but continues running.
2. Same runner heads to 1st sees F1 coming to get the ball laying next to the line. Runner swipes the ball with his foot.

Which one do you think is intentional? It's not rocket science, it's called umpiring.