dropped third strike

blscots6 · #1 (**permalink**) Mon Sep 16, 2002, 11:01am

This happened the other day on a dropped third strike with first base open. The ball caromed up the 1st base line and struck the runner on his way to first. What is the ruling?

Roger Greene · #2 (**permalink**) Mon Sep 16, 2002, 11:07am

F2 should have caught the ball. Live ball, play on (unless B-R intentionally interferes with the lose ball).

Roger Greene

Tim C · #3 (**permalink**) Mon Sep 16, 2002, 12:36pm

Roger:

What seems like the most basic answer (the one you have given) is not "exactly" true.

There seems to be a major disagreement between the two most significant "authoritive" sources.

Jaksa/Roder and Jim Evans "seem" to disagree on this issue.

Where you (and I) come from is that the defense should not be protected after they screw up.

There is a definite group that says "even an inadvertant" kick, which happens after a couple of steps out of the box, is deemed to be interferring with the play.

If the kick does not occur at the "plate area" there is now documentation that it is indeed interference and the Batter Runner should be called out.

While I see the play as you it does not mean that there are not conflicting viewpoints.

Roger Greene · #4 (**permalink**) Mon Sep 16, 2002, 01:03pm

Tee,

That's interesting. Wich one indicates inteference and do they give a play?

Roger Greene

bluezebra · #5 (**permalink**) Mon Sep 16, 2002, 02:27pm

This is not a batted ball. F2 misplayed the pitch. Why should B/R be penalized for a defensive goof?

Bob

Tim C · #6 (**permalink**) Mon Sep 16, 2002, 05:38pm

J/R says that the kick is inadvertant (unless the umpire deems it intentional) and Evans contends that this is "not" a scramble/unscramble play and if the batter has clearly passed the left handed batter's box and the ball is kicked it is intentional (no matter the intent).

Evans continues that the offense and defense BOTH screwed up . . . therefore rewarding the proper team is NOT considered.

Evans contends that interference can occur without obvious intent.

MAC · #7 (**permalink**) Mon Sep 16, 2002, 05:54pm

Take the out, J/R is right on this one the B/R can avoid the ball as he establishes his basepath to first base, the onus is on him to avoid the ball and the player trying to make a play on it, the B/R had to know F-2 dropped the ball or he would not be running, right, now you want to protect him
for contacting the ball as he is trying to get to first.
OUT, next batter please!

mac

bob jenkins · #8 (**permalink**) Mon Sep 16, 2002, 09:13pm

Quote:

Originally posted by bluezebra
This is not a batted ball. F2 misplayed the pitch. Why should B/R be penalized for a defensive goof?

Bob

Because 7.09(a) doesn't contain the word "intent".

(Just pointing it out -- not saying that I disagree with your premise.)

Roger Greene · #9 (**permalink**) Mon Sep 16, 2002, 10:11pm

Tee,
I guess I can see Evan's logic. If the contact with the ball is in the plate area, the batter probably wouldn't have had enough time/space to avoid the ball rebounding off F2. However, if the ball is up the line some distance, he should have the opportunity to avoid the contact; and as Bob stated 7.09(a) doesn't mention intent.

I prefer the J/R interpertation though. It is consistant with other thrown balls contacting a runner.

Thanks,
Roger Greene

bluezebra · #10 (**permalink**) Tue Sep 17, 2002, 01:55am

Quote:

Originally posted by MAC
Take the out, J/R is right on this one the B/R can avoid the ball as he establishes his basepath to first base, the onus is on him to avoid the ball and the player trying to make a play on it, the B/R had to know F-2 dropped the ball or he would not be running, right, now you want to protect him
for contacting the ball as he is trying to get to first.
OUT, next batter please!

mac

The way the original post is worded, the ball hit the B/R from behind. How is he supposed to avoid a ball hitting him from behind? Run backwards?

Bob

PeteBooth · #11 (**permalink**) Tue Sep 17, 2002, 07:45am

Originally posted by blscots6

This happened the other day on a dropped third strike with first base open. The ball caromed up the 1st base line and struck the runner on his way to first. What is the ruling?

As you can tell from the responses, for the most part this is nothing, but there could be a debate depending upon which Authoritative source one is reading. For the most part this is a simple play but nothing CONCRETE in OBR.

However, in HS played by FED rules, your particular thread is Spelled out in their case book.

FED Case Play 2.21.1(c)

With 2 outs, B1 strikes out, but F2 drops the ball, which rebounds into B1's path. As B1 begins running to first, B1 accidentally kicks the ball.

Ruling: B1 is NOT guilty of interference and the ball remains alive, unless in the umpire's judgement B1 INTENTIONALLY kicked the ball.

Under all 3 major rule books, your play is nothing, however, in OBR there could be a case (as Tee points out) to rule otherwise. Not so in FED.

Pete Booth

GarthB · #12 (**permalink**) Tue Sep 17, 2002, 01:22pm

MAC writes: "Take the out, J/R is right on this one..."

Uh....Mac? It was Evans who advocated the out, not J/R.

blscots6 · #13 (**permalink**) Tue Sep 17, 2002, 04:54pm

This happened at the high school level, so there is nothing to call. Thanks for clearing this up. The umpires got it right.

jicecone · #14 (**permalink**) Tue Sep 17, 2002, 08:50pm

Confused???

You said:"The ball caromed up the 1st base line and struck the runner on his way to first."

Everyone here seems to be talking about the runner striking the ball. What really happened?

greymule · #15 (**permalink**) Wed Sep 18, 2002, 10:31am

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?