Strange play in small ball

[David B]

Originally Posted by LittleLeagueBob

Dave -

The following is a NFHS case play - so may or may not apply, depending on the rules set your son is playing under...at the very least, can give you something to ponder.

7.3.5 SITUATION I: With a runner on third base and one out, B3 receives ball
four for a base on balls. B3 takes several steps toward first base and then realizes he is still holding onto the bat. With his dugout on the third base side, he stops and tosses the bat in front of home plate towards his bench. As he tosses the bat, F2 throws the ball to third in an attempt to put out R1. The ball contacts the bat in mid-air and is deflected into dead-ball territory. RULING: The ball is dead. Interference is declared on the batter. If R1 had been attempting to steal home, R1 would be declared out and B3 awarded first base on the base on balls. If R1 was attempting to return to third base on the play, B3 is declared out for the interference. (7-3-5)

Thanks Bob that's what I wanted and just didn't have time to look for. That's what I had interpreted the play as but needed some justification before presenting it to the umpires who actually called the games etc.,

Thanks
David

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by David B

Thanks Bob that's what I wanted and just didn't have time to look for. That's what I had interpreted the play as but needed some justification before presenting it to the umpires who actually called the games etc.,

Thanks
David

Don't bet that it applies to an OBR/LL game without further research.

[papablue]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

Don't bet that it applies to an OBR/LL game without further research.

And most likely, your research will come up empty.

OBR/LL is pretty specific on the intent aspect of the interference violation by a batter/runner. In the FED case given, I'm having trouble seeing intent by the B/R, by simply throwing his bat toward his dugout.

[David B]

Originally Posted by papablue

And most likely, your research will come up empty.

OBR/LL is pretty specific on the intent aspect of the interference violation by a batter/runner. In the FED case given, I'm having trouble seeing intent by the B/R, by simply throwing his bat toward his dugout.

I know what you are saying, but I look at the same way as typical batter interference.

The BR who simply backs out of the box after the pitch doesn't intend to interfere but if F2 steps into him or hits him etc., we have interference.

So I think how FED is interpreting it is the way that I am, you can have interference by the BR without intent.

But as you stated, I'm still looking for futher examples etc,.

Thanks
David

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by David B

I know what you are saying, but I look at the same way as typical batter interference.

The BR who simply backs out of the box after the pitch doesn't intend to interfere but if F2 steps into him or hits him etc., we have interference.

So I think how FED is interpreting it is the way that I am, you can have interference by the BR without intent.

But as you stated, I'm still looking for futher examples etc,.

Thanks
David

There's a specific rule about the batter stepping out of the box. Not the same animal.

[SAump]

A whole bat is thrown into fair territory, whether intentionally or not, and it interferes with a defensive player attempting to make a play. Interference shall be called;

Windy stated the ruling applied to this situation, although F2 is usually standing over foul territory. He stated that the batter is responsible for his actions, whether his thrown bat ends up striking a thrown ball or a thrown ball ends up striking his thrown bat. At the time, that is before the AMLU strike, some folks insisted that the batter was required to "place the bat on the ground" and then take 1B because the rules prohibit a thrown bat. The B/R is also out by NCAA rule. Windy insisted the same was true for OBR.

[David B]

Originally Posted by SAump

Windy stated the ruling applied to this situation, although F2 is usually standing over foul territory. He stated that the batter is responsible for his actions, whether his thrown bat ends up striking a thrown ball or a thrown ball ends up striking his thrown bat.
The B/R is also out by NCAA rule. Windy insisted the same was true for OBR.

Thanks for the assistance. This is surely a strange play, but we know FED wants the out, and this helps confirm. As the BRD says so often when there is no specific ruling, go with the others that have a ruling.

Looked at all of the different plays in the BRD and this play is not covered, but the essence of it is in several other plays, situations.

Thanks
DAvid