Batter kicks d3k

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by mroyal

How does one judge intent? Do you ask the BR, "Did you intend to kick that ball? 'Cause if you did, you're out! - BR: "No sir, I didn't intend to kick the ball."

We judge intent every waking moment. Everything you read here, you have to judge intent: is the author sincere, ironic, sarcastic, etc.? Every time you speak to someone, you have to judge his or her intent. When you drive you judge the intent of other drivers. This is not hard, and we do it all the time.

Besides, sometimes you just gotta umpire. Get used to it. If you have to ask the BR to know his intent, then you're not ready.

[mroyal]

C'mon, mbyron. I was being really sarcastic with the quoted question. I know that we continue to make judgments on intent continuously throughout a game.

With the OP, though, my judgment of intent differs from those above in that to me it has to do with the result of the play, or in this case the result of preventing a play. The thought that someone would penalize the catcher for not catching the ball (even though he blocked it and it's rebounding forward to the plate), but let the batter kick a ball that was clearly over the plate instead of avoiding it. I'm sure you wouldn't ding a batter for not completely moving out of the way of a pitch that comes thought the batters box. So, if I have a catcher that has blocked a pitch forward to the plate and is attempting to play that ball, I will protect his right to field the ball. The BR has the responsibility to avoid a ball in fair territory.

[umpjong]

Originally Posted by mroyal

C'mon, mbyron. I was being really sarcastic with the quoted question. I know that we continue to make judgments on intent continuously throughout a game.

With the OP, though, my judgment of intent differs from those above in that to me it has to do with the result of the play, or in this case the result of preventing a play. The thought that someone would penalize the catcher for not catching the ball (even though he blocked it and it's rebounding forward to the plate), but let the batter kick a ball that was clearly over the plate instead of avoiding it. I'm sure you wouldn't ding a batter for not completely moving out of the way of a pitch that comes thought the batters box. So, if I have a catcher that has blocked a pitch forward to the plate and is attempting to play that ball, I will protect his right to field the ball. The BR has the responsibility to avoid a ball in fair territory.

So when the coach comes out to protest/argue your call, you will state that (in every case of this) the runner intentionally kicked the ball. Otherwise you are ruling contrary to the rule. This is not a good idea in my mind. As someone stated earlier, sometimes you have to umpire....

[mroyal]

Originally Posted by umpjong

So when the coach comes out to protest/argue your call, you will state that (in every case of this) the runner intentionally kicked the ball. Otherwise you are ruling contrary to the rule. This is not a good idea in my mind. As someone stated earlier, sometimes you have to umpire....

If the kick is preventing the catcher from making a play, then yes, I have an intentional kick.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by mroyal

If the kick is preventing the catcher from making a play, then yes, I have an intentional kick.

A kick is not intentional just because the result is inconvenient for the defense.

[mroyal]

Originally Posted by mbyron

A kick is not intentional just because the result is inconvenient for the defense.

I will make the judgment and argue with the OC based on the batter preventing the catcher from making a play.

You can argue with the DC and tell him that you've got nothing but an inconvenience.

I like my chances better...

[ozzy6900]

Originally Posted by mroyal

I will make the judgment and argue with the OC based on the batter preventing the catcher from making a play.

You can argue with the DC and tell him that you've got nothing but an inconvenience.

I like my chances better...

One thing you are forgetting here - it is 2's job to catch the ball. This is a d3k scenario or rather, let's call it what the book calls it - third strike not caught meaning the defense did not do their job.

Now the offense is trying to do his job by running to 1st base but he contacts the ball that is there because the defensive player didn't do his job. By your own definition, you are awarding the side that failed to do their job.

I think that you should listen to the more learned people that are politely responding to you in that: "Sometimes you have to umpire!"

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by mroyal

The BR has the responsibility to avoid a ball in fair territory.

Reference please, for other than a batted ball.

[bossman72]

NCAA - ball is dead and everyone returns 7-11-h AR 2

[mroyal]

(sorry - i re-edited to get the notations in there instead for the long-winded verbage)

7.3.2 - contact with the ball while outside the batters box or with home plate...
2.21.1a - interferese with, obstructs, impedes, hinders or confuses any fielder attempting to make a play...

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by mroyal

(sorry - i re-edited to get the notations in there instead for the long-winded verbage)

7.3.2 - contact with the ball while outside the batters box or with home plate...
2.21.1a - interferese with, obstructs, impedes, hinders or confuses any fielder attempting to make a play...

I assume you mean 7-3-2 and 2-21-1a (dashes for rules; dots for cases).

7-3-2 says "HIT the ball FAIR or FOUL ..." It's talking about hitting a pitch. Clearly not relevant to contacting an uncaught third strike (which is what the OP was about).

2-21-1a is more on point in that the play is interference. Some interference must be intentional to result in an out.

Notice, for example that 8-4-1a says "he INTENTIONALLY interferes with the catcher's attempt to field the ball after a third strike." Further 8.4.1I is nearly the same as the OP and says, "If, in the judgment of the umpire, B1 did not intentionally interfere, then the ball remains alive and the play stands."