batter kicks the ball out of play
 

R1, wild pitch, the ball bounces off the catcher at the batters legs and rolls into the dugout. how many bases gets the runner from 1st ?

same sit but now the ball rolls behind the batter and comes to rest. the batter doesnt know where the ball is and takes a step back and kicks the ball with his heel into the dugout. can R1 advance on this play, and if YES, how far ?

1. One base on a pitch that goes out of play.

2. Since the kick is unintentional, one base on a pitch that goes out of play.

thanks

Let me just add this. This is a one base award as long as there was sufficient momentum on the pitch itself for the ball to travel into DBT. If the umpire judges that the deflection by the catcher added additional impetus to cause the ball to go out of play when it otherwise wouldn't have, then it's a two base award from TOP.


Tim.

Tim No books with me , TOP or Time of Deflection from catcher.

Some reason, I thought it was from time of Deflection

It's TOP. From the J/R:

A subsequent push of a pitch or in-contact throw occurs when such pitch or throw is errant, but does not have sufficient momentum to enter DBT or to become lodged, and remains on the playing field. The ball itself (not in possession by a fielder) is subsequently pushed (shoved, kicked, bumped, etc.), and the new momentum (not direction) provided to the ball causes it to enter DBT or become lodged. Each runner is awarded two bases beyond his TOP base.


Tim.

So why would R1 not get 2 bases - it's no longer gone into DBT on its own momentum, the ball came to rest and it was kicked out. It would be a 2 base award if the catcher kicked it out. what's the difference?

I say:
1. one base TOP
2. two bases TOP

edit to add: - I just now read the J/R quote thoroughly and my question is answered in it. I hadn't seen anyone answer two bases on the kicked ball, so I was confused.

FED case book states TOkick - Haven't found anything else - So I'm sticking with Tim's J/R quote.

Thank guys.

Now we know, when Fedlandia do as the Fedlands do.

Read the sitch again, the catcher didn't knock it into DBT, the batter did.

We must be reading it differently.


Tim.

Tim was only addressing OP play #1. You are referring to play #2.

I guess I was, but I was also reading off the catcher at the batters legs to mean it went off his legs, and the title of the thing was batter kicks ball, so in the first sitch I thought it went off the batters legs, and in the second he kicked it with his heel as he was stepping back.

Yeah, I found the whole thing pretty confusing myself. I thought the same thing until I read it a few times.:)

If the catcher has a play on the runner at first, who should be stealing in this instance, and the batter kicks the ball (intentional or not), why would it not be interference/dead ball/batter out/runners return to last base occupied at the time of interference?

I agree: if the batter kicks the ball intentionally, then he's out for interference.

But if the kick is unintentional, I'm not going to reward the defense for their error (the wild pitch or passed ball). Live ball, play on (unless, of course, the ball goes out of play on the accidental kick).

Intentional or not, if the batter kicks the ball he takes away the opportunity for the catcher to make a play. What if a batter unintentionally moves in front of the catcher on a throw.......what's the difference?

The difference is the defensive error which preceded your first question. The batter can't be expected to know where the ball is when it's rolling around behind him, but he can be expected to stay in the box so as not to interfere with the catcher throwing to a base.

I had this situation, Runner on 3B - Catcher drops the ball and it bounces toward the batter who kicks it 10 ft away backing out of the box (unintentionally??).

Your reasoning would give a run to the offense and take away an out from the defense.

What are you going to say to the screaming defensive coach?

I don't say anything to screaming coaches, I just use my finger.

But if the coach asks me to justify my call, I would say, "Coach, in my judgment the batter kicked the ball unintentionally. By rule, that is not interference, live ball, play on. I will not punish the offense because your catcher missed the ball."

Edited to add: By the way, I don't "give" or "take" runs; I merely observe what occurs and enforce the rules.

Screming defensive coaches don't get responses, they get tossed.

Reasoned defensive coaches get the truth. If they can't handle the truth, see above.

Enough said right there.

Don't say this to a coach. You started by directing the coach's issue to the rulebook, which is where he's mistaken. but this added statement redirects his ire toward YOU, and you're (at least to his ears) personal decision not to punish a particular player.

If you have to add this, instead say, "The rules do not punish the offense because of an error or situation initiated by the defense." Keep it impersonal.

I hate this default response from so many of the posters here. First you attribute the "reasoning" to the umpire, when in fact it's the rules that provide the reasoning for this call. Second, you seem to defend the right to make a bad call by saying "If you call it right, how are you going to explain it to an irate coach!??!?!" as if that is motivation enough to call it wrong. I HATE it when posters retreat to this position. The possibility of creating an irate coach should never enter into our thought processes when making rulings.

Intent is a judgement call, by the umpire, but I'm not sure it even applies in this case

Looking at my NFHS baseball rules, they state:

A batter shall not:

Interfere with the catcher's fielding or throwing by:

c. making any other movement which hinders actions at home plate, or the catchers attempt to play on a runner.


In High school rules at least, there is no mention of intent.

That's probably good advice. I do like to point out to the D-coach when the defense's errors initiated a situation, but you're right to keep it impersonal.

Interference with a thrown ball must be intentional. Are you willing to be instructed?

Interference by a runner on a thrown ball has to be intentional. Does the same go for the batter?

Is a pitch considered a thrown ball?

I'm not sure, but it seems to me kicking the ball is definitely interfering with the catcher's attempt to make a play.

Looks like you have your answer, Michael.

1. Yes.

2. It depends, but that's irrelevant to the question about batter interference.

3. I've already answered the other one, and it seems to me that you don't or won't understand the rule.

You're starting to sound like a fanboy with a bad experience.

Are you asking real questions? Or just trying to stir the pot. You're not sure, and things SEEM to you ... blah blah blah. You might try cracking open the rulebook and you would KNOW things instead of having things "Seem" one way or another.

You should KNOW the answer to your first three questions, if you've had any experience with the rulebook at all, and your should SURELY know those answers before trying to debate the ruling on the OP.

I seriously don’t understand why the batter would not be out for interference regardless of intent. Maybe I’m confusing softball rules, which I call more than baseball.

Again, here was my situation – runner on third, catcher bobbles the pitch, batter (with 1-1 count) kicks the ball, run comes home and scores.

The rule applies to the batter – who hinders the catcher. He is not yet a batter – runner.

Now, the rules do say a BATTER RUNNER is out when he intentionally interferes with the catcher on a dropped third strike or intentionally interferes with a throw, or thrown ball.

What am I missing?

If you are really serious about learning the rules of baseball, I strongly recommend that you buy the Jaksa/Roder Manual. http://www.rulesofbaseball.com/ Including shipping, it runs a little under $50. The situation that you are trying to understand is a good example of why J/R is useful. The unfortunate fact is that the OBR and FED rule books are frequently unclear, and sometimes multiple rules must be invoked to reach the correct ruling. Situations related to the batter, B/R, and other players near home plate possibly interfering are, in my opinion, hard to fathom using the standard rule books.

J/R is organized differently, and has a chapter entitled "Offensive Interference." In it you will learn that there are 4 ways (some of which are not intentional) in which a batter can interfere with the catcher, other ways in which B/R or runners can interfere, and still other ways in which offensive teammates can interfere.

You would then learn, appropos of your situation, that an offensive teammate includes "a batter after a pitch has gone past the catcher (such batter is no longer trying to bat the pitch and is treated as an 'offensive teammate' in a determination of whether interference has occurred)." It is interference if he "(1) blatantly and avoidably hinders" or "(2) intentionally hinders" or (3).....

J/R is not an official manual and sometimes uses terminology different than the rulebooks. It is however consistent in its teaching with the rules as they are actually practiced today (especially for OBR). I don't claim that J/R will allow you to easily understand "why", but it will allow you to understand the fabric behind the rules.

There are other books to read: the BRD (www.officiating.com) and the PBUC are publically available. JEA and MLBUM aren't generally available. MLBUM is the ultimate authority for OBR based rules, and JEA has the most background and explanation of the rules-- or so I am told.

People here are willing to answer direct questions about the rules, but they typically aren't willing to call out each of the rule numbers to justify their ruling. And they sure aren't willing to entertain sustained arguments about commonly understood rules. So buy J/R: you'll learn much faster, and everybody will be happier.

[End of lecture mode]

Sounds to me like what you're missing is the word INTENTIONALLY in the rules you just paraphrased. The OP is a sitch where the interference was UN-intentional. PS- this is identical in most softball codes too.

We had sitch #2 happen in a D3 tournament game up here several years ago. With two out and runners on first and second, the batter swung and missed at strike three which was in the dirt. He took off for first and UNintentionally kicked the ball into the dugout. Umpires called time, huddled up for a long discussion, and awarded the BR 2nd base and the two baserunners were also moved up two bases. Their explanation was the momentum of the pitch would not have caused it to go into the dugout (so no one-base award). They met with some argument, but since the situation had never been seen by anyone on that field before, everyone ultimately accepted the ruling and moved on. And lots of people dug into the rule book that night.

JJ