The second example given by Durham is a good one. The ball did not have enough energy to make it into the dugout. The sliding catcher added the energy necessary for the ball to reach DBT. That is why the award is 2 from the time of deflection. The catcher neither intended to deflect it, nor had any control of the ball when he deflected it.

The OP follows the same principle. The umpire must make a judgment. Did the fielder supply the energy necessary for the ball to reach DBT? If so, then it's a TOD award. If he merely redirected the kinetic energy of the ball by deflecting it, then it's a TOP award.

Whether or not the ball is in flight is irrelevant to this determination.

I still disagree and the BRD and PBUC back me up.

First of all this is a batted ball. The references I was able to find to determining if the added push by the fielder caused the ball to go out were all in reference to a pitch or a throw from the mound. (I am only using my BRD and PBUC right now.)

The BRD clearly states: If a batted or thrown ball is unintentionally deflected into dead ball territory the award is the same at all levels: two bases measured from TOP (batted ball) or TOT (thrown ball)

In a separate section Carl references the FED's ruling that the fielder's intent is not relevant, what counts is the impetus that caused the ball to go dead. This, however, is specifically referring to a pitch intentionally deflected. What FED does is reduce the award if the ball was going to go dead anyway. This still requires the act to be intentional.

In the OP the fielder was trying to catch a batted ball and unintentionally deflected it into DBT. This is a TOP award according to every reference I am looking at. If you can quote a reference that says otherwise, please let me know so I can check it out.

I found references to the subsequent push/new impetus in J/R and the NCAA rulebook and they are limited, in both references, to a pitch or in-contact throw. Unless Durham or someone else with a MLBUM can demonstrate otherwise, I concede the point to you and Rich. Good discussion. That's one of the reasons I'm here.

Men,

I am having a hard time with this interp. I had a play early this year when we had R1, outs don't matter. There was a clean BH to left field, the ball is down on the grass. LF tries to cut tries ball off and it goes off his glove and goes into DBT. It was not a very well laid out field (no fence for the playing field in that area, and a short piece of foul ground) for that to happen but it did.

It is not far from this play to imagine an intentional kick and carry to save a base or more by the defense. In the play I had in this situation, I need to understand why the offense is penalized by the mistake the defense made, at least in my case. Once the ball is down and rolling on the ground and not in danger of going out of play until the direction is changed by the fielder, you have a different set of variables to play with. The fly ball ball hits off glove or F9's head and goes out, or the rocket shot gets mishandled by F5, and goes out is one thing. I can live with that.

However, IMO there is a difference in my play where the "big dogs" are missing a signigficant piece of the puzzle.

Sorry for the rant here.

JK: I don't see the rule penalizing the offense. After all, a ball that hits in fair territory and bounces over the fence is a 2 base award -- that runner on 1B feels gypped, but nobody complains about it. Given the current scenario, I would have told a complaining coach (a) that's the rule, and (b) it's like a "ground rule double," which is to say, "hey, that's baseball."

I found Armadillo's reference: in my 2008 BRD, it's note 27, in §28, on p. 32. We should note the difference between unintentionally deflecting a batted ball into DBT (2 bases from TOP) and intentionally doing so (2 bases from TOT). Thus, intent carries a potentially greater penalty.

8.3.3J seems very similar to your play (except it happens in RF not in LF). Note the difference between "impetus" provided by the fielder and "force" provided by the batted ball.

Basically, treat the fielder as a rock. IF the ball hits off a rock and goes out of play, it's two bases, TOP. If the ball wouldn't have gone out of play, then it's two bases TOT (or TODeflection).

An intentional kick is always two bases TOK.

8.3.3K provides additional guidance.

Bob,

I see what the casebook says. I did not recall this case play. Thank you for pointing it out. Do you believe this is applicable to a ball in flight as well as a bounding ball as in the case play.

Is there anything in the OBR texts that suggest this? My reading of PBUC section 3.8 is that this would be a TOP award unless deemed intentional. In the FED play it bounces off the leg unintentionally which leads me to believe that OBR does not recognize the impetus concept FED uses.

So do you believe that in the OP we should award the BR third if he reached first prior to the second deflection? Or is this still considered a fair ball in flight deflected into foul DBT and thus a TOP award as I have suggested?

Thus far, it looks like I have it right in FED, and Armadillo has it right in OBR & NCAA.

Its a floor wax! It's a dessert topping! Stop - you're both right!

For the OP, it's the SECONDARY attempt by F3 that leads me to believe that this is 2 bases from the time of the deflection. The ball would not have gone out of play had he not forced it out on the dive. Had the ball went out of play on his initial deflection, then yes, I would agree that it's 2 from the TOP.

Desert Topping Tastes Better
 

I'm still not sold on the TOT in this instance. To me the ball still meets the definition of in flight no matter how many times it is touched until it hits the ground or an object.

I'm willing to defer to the experts, however, if someone has a case play or interp discussing a ball in flight.

I do agree that on any thrown or pitched ball it would, in FED, be time of deflection.

Bob,
 

Thank you for the analogy, that is more or less how I saw the play.

Still, this was an NCAA game with my play, and even if I am going against the rule/case/interpretation books, I am comfortable my partner and I came up with the right call for our situation.

Not every play can be legislated, that's why we who wear, heather, charcoal, Black, Navy, Lt. Blue in 32 different flavors, Creme, Gray, White, Red :eek:, and who knows what else have something called judgment.

(Did I miss any colors?)

No doubt about that.

I had games all day yesterday just checking the thread this am....seems like a good discussion. I am still a bit unclear, in my particular situation, if its ruled TOP or TOT or TOT #2. Anyone care to give me a summary?

Summary: It's either TOP or TOT, depending on the energy of the ball or the energy added by the fielder and how you choose to read the rules.

I hope that helps. ;)

Thanks Bob and to all those whom replied