Batter kicks d3k

[bisonpitcher]

On a Dropped Third Strike, if a batter inadvertantely kicks a ball that bounced back in the area of HP, would you have interference? Would it matter if it kept the catcher from making the play and he reached first or not?

Does OBR or FED rule the same on this?

Thanks in advance for any reference.

[johnnyg08]

might have to see it, but based upon what you're asking, could very well be a live ball, play on...could very well be interference. will look up rule ref tonight unless others post it here first

[UmpJM]

bisonpitcher,

As long as the umpire judges it unintentional, "That's nothing" - live ball, play the bounce.

FED 8.4.1 I.

JM

[jdmara]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

bisonpitcher,

As long as the umpire judges it unintentional, "That's nothing" - live ball, play the bounce.

FED 8.4.1 I.

JM

I agree. The umpire would have to rule it intentional to call interference.

-Josh

[bisonpitcher]

Thats what I thought. How about if the runner kicked it out of play inadvertantely??

[DG]

Originally Posted by bisonpitcher

Thats what I thought. How about if the runner kicked it out of play inadvertantely??

No reward for the defense not making a play (ie catch a strike).

[mroyal]

Originally Posted by bisonpitcher

On a Dropped Third Strike, if a batter inadvertantely kicks a ball that bounced back in the area of HP, would you have interference? Would it matter if it kept the catcher from making the play and he reached first or not?

Does OBR or FED rule the same on this?

Thanks in advance for any reference.

RULE 8 SECTION 4 RUNNER IS OUT:
ART. 1 . . . The batter-runner is out when:
a. he intentionally interferes with the catcher’s attempt to field the ball after a third strike;

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." Maybe he's honest, but again maybe not. Sounds silly, but how do you judge it? The batter has the right to the batters box. The pitcher and catcher have the plate. If the ball is on the ground in the batters box when the BR "kicks" it, then I would have nothing. But, with the ball over or on the plate and the BR kicks it - especially when the catcher is or attempting to make a play on the ball - then I have INT on the now BR. This is much in the same fashion of the BR falling or leaning over the plate following a swing as the catcher does or attempts or prepares to make a play on R1's advance to 2nd. BR is out! Also, just as the advancing runner is to avoid contact with a fielder making a play on the ball, the BR has to provide the same leeway when the ball is over the plate. Now, once the ball leaves the plate area then that is a different story.

[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.

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by mroyal

This is much in the same fashion of the BR falling or leaning over the plate following a swing

No it isn't. Intent is not a factor in that situation.

[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....

[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...

[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.