Unusual play - Ruling/Interpretation Question

[Rich Ives]

The OP has a ball in flight being deflected into DBT. What's all this subsequent push/added impetus BS.

The Canseco added impetus was a HR. If it went out in foul teritory it would be 2 bases TOP.

[Armadillo_Blue]

I agree with Rich and disagree with Dash and Durham..According to the PBUC (I don't have a MLBUM):

If a fair fly ball is deflected in flight by a fielder and then goes out of play outside of the foul lines the award is two bases from the time of the pitch.

It goes on to say that even if the ball is not in flight it would still be time of pitch.

According to the PBUC the only instance it is time of deflection is when the act is intentional or when the fielder had complete control of the ball and then drops it and deflects it out of play. In all other instances it is time of pitch or in the case of a thrown ball, time of throw. (Except the first play by an infielder...)

[johnnyg08]

I think the deflection was a secondary action after the initial one (maybe what you're consider the Canseco one...then another deflection that went out of play...seemingly foul territory

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by Armadillo_Blue

If a fair fly ball is deflected in flight by a fielder and then goes out of play outside of the foul lines the award is two bases from the time of the pitch.

That is not a subsequent push. The momentum of the ball took it over the wall (even though it was deflected by the fielder). The fielder did not add the impetus (energy), he just deflected the ball.

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

The OP has a ball in flight being deflected into DBT. What's all this subsequent push/added impetus BS.

The Canseco added impetus was a HR. If it went out in foul teritory it would be 2 bases TOP.

There was no subsequent push/added impetus to the Canseco HR. Had he caught the ball and thrown it over the fence, it would be 2 from the TOT.

And if you think the subsequent push/added impetus stuff is BS, sooner or later you're going to get it wrong on the field.

[Armadillo_Blue]

Dash, that is correct for the Conseco play because he would have had control of it and deliberately thrown it into dead ball. Then the award is TOD.

Unless I am reading it wrong, the OP is a deflected ball. Granted it is deflected twice, but the ball remained in flight and the fielder was attempting to catch it not deliberately deflect it. Therefore the rule is clear that the award is time of pitch.

PBUC clearly states that time of deflection only applies if the subsequent push is intentional or happens after the fielder had complete control of the ball.

[dash_riprock]

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.

[Armadillo_Blue]

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.

[dash_riprock]

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.

[jkumpire]

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.