Batter Kicks Fair Ball in Batters Box
 

Batter hits pitch which immediately comes to rest in fair territory, but in the batter's box (on batter's side). Batter takes off to run, but kicks ball (after it had come to rest in batter's box, fair territory).

Batter out, foul ball, or nothing?

Unless the kick was judged to be intentional it's nothing.


Tim.

I don't see this as any different than a batted ball hitting the batter over the fair territory portion of the box as he exits it. I suppose by strict interpretation of the rule you're correct that this is interference. However, by accepted practice this is nothing.


Tim.

He hits the ball. It immediately comes to rest in the batter's box. Then the batter takes off?

Why did the batter wait until the ball came to rest before running? Didn't he naturally start running when he first made contact with the ball?

And what did he hit the ball with to get it to stop immediately, a 64 degree lob wedge? Are they playing on the beach? Sounds like a real TWP to me.

FOUL BALL. See recent post on this same subject, but ball was in front of the plate and was kicked with one foot in the box and one foot out.

That sounds like a foul ball to me. Was the kick intentional? If so then you have interference and an out.

Plain and simple, If the batter contacts a fair batted ball before an infielder has an opportunity to field the ball the batter is OUT. Intent is not a factor.

This has to be one of the funniest threads ever.

Are you guys crazy? What is the difference between this situation and if he fouls it off his foot in the box? Its a foul ball. There is no way it could be nothing. What a joke.

It's definitely up there.

Actually, the field was in terrible shape, lots of dried QuikDry around the plate (just like sand), ball barely nipped bat and stopped immediately, stopped by the "sand".

The ump called an out since the batter contacted the ball after it had come to a complete stop (runner ran only after coach yelled "Run" - middle school, you know), as opposed to the ball striking the runner while ball was still moving, so he said.

Coaches didn't argue, but since there's no concensus here either, at this point, I'm not surprised.

If anybody could copy and paste the applicable rule wording here, I would appreciate.

Just trying to educate myself as a fan, and I've come to depend on you guys.

Actually, I'm amazed at the lack of concensus.

Actually, I amazed that no one knows how to spell <i>"consensus"</i>.:)

I kind of thought I didn't need to spell out that it was a foul ball. I took for granted that anyone with a lick of sense would know that when I said it was "nothing"I meant "nothing" as in not interference. I'll do better next time, PWL.


Tim.

AaaaaK!

Brain malfuction.

consensus consensus consensus consensus consensus consensus consensus consensus consensus consensus consensus consensus consensus consensus consensus consensus consensus consensus consensus consensus consensus consensus consensus consensus consensus consensus consensus consensus consensus consensus consensus consensus consensus consensus consensus consensus consensus consensus consensus consensus consensus consensus consensus consensus consensus consensus consensus consensus consensus consensus

Well, Tim, Paul has a point. The original poster asked for folks to pick from three options: "Batter out, foul ball, or nothing?" Thus the OP seeming wouldn't understand that when you chose one, you also "meant" another.

Agreed. I didn't read his options as closely as I should have.


Tim.

As Chris Jaksa so wonderfully explained at umpire school many moons ago, 13% of the batter's box is actually in fair territory, but if the ball should contact the batter anywhere in the box, call it a foul ball, and if there are no box lines at all, be darned sure he's out of the box if you're going to call him out.

I agree w/ Ump25...this will be the best way to deal with it...I worked a HS game this past Thurs and the pitcher was committing a balk by the letter of the rule, but in no way, was deceiving the runner or gaining an advantage either way...I told the catcher to go tell his pitcher what he was doing, I told the coach on his way over to the 3B coaching box...no worries...in my opinion, don't over officiate by looking for the little things that can disrupt the flow of a baseball game. In the sitch above...this is a foul ball. leave it at that...make your call w/ authority, and move on. I guess I just don't feel there's a need to go looking for cheap balks...maybe in MLB...but I will never be an MLB umpire.

Oh c'mon -- what are the chances of a BR being hit by his own bunt in fair territory when he's out of the box. It's only going to happen during a series when every other strange play takes place. ;)

Now, Bob, you wouldn't be referring to our series from Hell this weekend, would you? :D

Not saying that one game is more important than another but it's funny how the weird stuff tends to happened at lower levels or teams that aren't as polished. Not always, but speaking from experience.

I agree with your point, but don't tell the Cubs that from last week - what did their game have three or four unusual plays ...

As Bob I believe stated, these plays kind of seem to all come in the same game also :D

Thanks
David

Well, Bob and I weren't working the lower levels this weekend. We worked a 3-game NCAA conference series, and from the first inning of the first game, nothing was normal! It was some of the most bizarre stuff in which I have ever participated. Weird plays, rulings, an ejection of a foaming-at-the-mouth assistant (who, BTW, I was told was an absolute menace as a former minor league player and coach--he got dumped more times than Elizabeth Taylor)--everything seemed to have happened.

Considering the success of the Cubbies in the last century or so...that's exactly what I'm saying! :D no, just kidding, i get your point..

Sounds like you guys had to use a lot of rules. :)

Well, as one of my partners told me, "With you and Jenkins on the field, nobody will be able to question a rule." :D

That didn't stop them from questioning judgment calls, though. :p

Ha ! <iiiii>