<i> Originally posted by greymule </i>

<b> What about ball 4 that gets away from F2 and contacts the batter in these various stages of running to 1B? Do the same interpretive conflicts apply? </b>

IMO you are comparing Apples to Oranges. On ball 4, B1 becomes a runner and is entitled to first base without liability to be put out. In the example given although B1 became a runner on a dropped thrid strike he /she is not entitiled to first base without liability. Different scenarios.

It's a real stretch but if there were other runners on base, B1 although entitiled to first base without liability to be put out cannot interfere with F2's ability to make a play on another runner, but B1 would have to do something extreme.

Pete Booth

the runner didn't intentionally strike the ball, the ball hit him.

Apples to oranges in one sense. Yes, on ball 4, B1 is awarded 1B without liability to be put out, but the ball is still live, and I would think some of the same principles would apply.

There seem to be endless variations on B1 interfering with a pitch that gets away. How about these two:

1. In attempting to scoop ball 4 in the dirt, F2 knocks the ball in the air 15 feet down the 1B line. B1 takes off for first, and the ball hits his heel and (a) goes into the dugout, or (b) bounces away such that he reaches 2B.

2. R1 on 3B. Ball 4 is in the dirt and bounces up in front of home plate as B1 starts to run to 1B. B1 knocks the ball far enough away from F2 for R1 to score.

I'm surprised these plays have never happened to me. What are the correct calls? Would they be different if strike 3 instead of ball 4?

"the runner didn't intentionally strike the ball, the ball hit him"

Play ON..

I'd be inclined to just call the ball dead -- advance BR and any forced runners; return others.

If another runner was advancing and I thought F2 had a play, then I'd be more likely (read: HTBT) to call interference. The walk entitles BR to advance w/o being "put out" but he still must advance legally and can be "declared out".