batter interference?? nothing??

[ggk]

0-2 count on the batter, 0 outs, no runners on. BR swings at a pitch in the dirt for strike 3. the ball bounces off of the ground and into the catchers shin guard and then bounces up the first base line- approx 2-3 feet up the line. simultaneously, the batter drops his bat and begins to run towards first. as the ball is slowing down, the bat - which the batter has just dropped while running towards first - unintentionally strikes the ball and knocks it away approx 15 ft. the runner reaches first safely.

is this nothing?? interference on the batter? would it make a difference if the ball had stopped and was then struck with the dropped bat??

in my scenerio both the bat and the ball are still moving, but the ball was on the ground first before the bat was dropped.

i'm pretty sure it is nothing if the bat is dropped first and the bat is not moving and the ball rolls into the bat.

obviously, the above scenerios are for a pitched ball.

are there any differences in the ruling if it was a batted ball?? i'm sure if it was a ball on foul territory that was struck by the bat then we would have foul ball - does it matter if the ball had a chance to become fair?

in all sits there is no intent on the part of the batter to strike the ball on the ground.

this occurred in ncaa game. any differences in codes?? please provide any and all rule citations.

thanks.

[TwoBits]

You have a thrown (pitched) ball that was deflected off a defensive player (the catcher) and contacts the bat which is no longer in the hands of the batter and the batter did not intentionally throw the bat at the ball.

OBR rule 7.09a states that it is interference by the batter or runner when, after a third strike he hinders the catcher in his attempt to field the ball. However, on a deflected ball that catcher has already had a chance to catching the ball, I would say you still have nothing. Does the "step and a reach" principle apply to the catcher?

In FED, 8.4.1a states the batter-runner is out when he intentionally interferes with the catcher's attempt to field the ball after a third strike (the italics are my emphasis). It is spelled out very clearly that there is no call in in GGK's scenario under FED rules.

Still, I'd like to hear OBR's interpretation.

[newump]

i have nothing. i can't see how i'm going to hold the batter responsible for where he drops his bat in this situation. everyone is doing what they are supposed to.

[jdmara]

I've got nothing on that play but a runner on first

-Josh

[mbyron]

In this case, interference would have to be intentional, and it doesn't matter whether ball hits bat or bat hits ball. Sounds as if you ruled that it was not intentional, in which case, play on. Good call.

For a batted ball, interference requires (a) ball is or might be fair, and (b) bat hits ball (no INT if ball hits bat). Intent not required, since the batter is held to a higher standard when he puts the ball in play (as opposed to the defense muffing the catch of strike 3).

I believe these are the same in all codes.

[thumpferee]

Ok, here we go. I just have to voice my opinion here.

I have to go the other way on this as the play was described. I have interference and BR out. I just can't see a BR dropping a bat and the ball going 15 feet.

TwoBits brought up 8.4.1, but I'm inclined to believe that is the fielder himself and not his bat. As a batter, you have a responsibility to know where you DROP your bat. (ball hits bat nothing, bat hits ball INT)

Also, mbyron mentioned the batter is held to a higher standard when he puts the ball in play, HE STRUCK OUT! (sorry for hollaring) The only scenerio I saw in the case book only gave a runner stepping on the ball (8.4.1 SIT. I). Interference does not have to be intentional to be called.

Now, as I said, as the play was described. Ball is rolling down the line, BR then DROPS bat, ball rolls 15 ft. away...HMMMM

OK, let me have it!

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by thumpferee

Ok, here we go. I just have to voice my opinion here.

I have to go the other way on this as the play was described. I have interference and BR out. I just can't see a BR dropping a bat and the ball going 15 feet.

TwoBits brought up 8.4.1, but I'm inclined to believe that is the fielder himself and not his bat. As a batter, you have a responsibility to know where you DROP your bat. (ball hits bat nothing, bat hits ball INT)

Also, mbyron mentioned the batter is held to a higher standard when he puts the ball in play, HE STRUCK OUT! (sorry for hollaring) The only scenerio I saw in the case book only gave a runner stepping on the ball (8.4.1 SIT. I). Interference does not have to be intentional to be called.

Now, as I said, as the play was described. Ball is rolling down the line, BR then DROPS bat, ball rolls 15 ft. away...HMMMM

OK, let me have it!

MLBUM:

6.11 BATTER INTERFERES AFTER THIRD STRIKE NOT CAUGHT
Official Baseball Rule 7.09(a) provides that the batter-runner be called out for interference if "after a third strike he hinders the catcher in his attempt to field the ball."

Play: First base unoccupied or two out. Strike three not caught. Batter-runner unintentionally kicks, touches, or otherwise deflects the pitched ball that was not caught by the catcher. Catcher is unable to make a play.

Ruling: If this occurs in the vicinity of home plate, the ball is alive and in play. However, if this occurs up the first base line (where the batter-runner has had time to avoid the ball), interference is called, the batter-runner declared out, and runners return to base occupied at time of pitch.
(See Approved Ruling (8) in Section 6.23.)

As the OP said the ball was ". . approx 2-3 feet up the line . ." I think the "vicinity of home plate" part applies.

[thumpferee]

Thanks Rich!

What happened to the "up the line" part of the MLBUM ruling and the "catcher is unable to make a play"?

I still believe the ruling is with the BR and not his bat.

I know I read somewhere where the bat was involved in a sitch like this. Maybe it was a LL rule book. Where is Tim C when you need him

[ggk]

thanks, rich.

thanks for the mlbum ruling. i'd consider the ball to have been in the vicinity of home plate - therefore nothing.

thanks