OBR 709(a) Dropped third strike, hinders catcher?

[LionsCoach]

I'm new to site. I had looked at prior postings concerning OBR 709(a) but still slightly confused.

Specifically, 709 reads "It is interference by a batter or a runner when- (a) After a third srike he hinders the catcher in his attempt to field the ball;"

I know that some rules spell out the interference must be intentional and some include accidental interference. 709(a) just says "hinders the catcher". There is no reference to intentional. What is the correct ruling apply 709(a) to the situation that happened in our game yesterday.

Situation:

Dropped third strike which rolled into fair teritory (location of ball probably not relevant). Batter upon running to 1st. steps on ball rolling it away from catcher. Catcher was unable to make play due to ball being stepped on and moved.

[CDcoach]

I'd call interference if the reason he was unable to make the play was because of the BR stepping on it. A dropped third strike should be a simple play for the catcher therefore if he can't make a play becuase of the BR stepping on it I'd call him out.

[chris s]

Originally posted by LionsCoach
I'm new to site. I had looked at prior postings concerning OBR 709(a) but still slightly confused.

Specifically, 709 reads "It is interference by a batter or a runner when- (a) After a third srike he hinders the catcher in his attempt to field the ball;"

I know that some rules spell out the interference must be intentional and some include accidental interference. 709(a) just says "hinders the catcher". There is no reference to intentional. What is the correct ruling apply 709(a) to the situation that happened in our game yesterday.

Situation:

Dropped third strike which rolled into fair teritory (location of ball probably not relevant). Batter upon running to 1st. steps on ball rolling it away from catcher. Catcher was unable to make play due to ball being stepped on and moved.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~`
I would only call interference here if intentional, not the batters fault F2 can't do his job.....

[GarthB]

Who's fault is that we have a loose ball rolling around? The pitcher's? The catcher's? It ain't the batter's. Why punish him for unintentional contact? The defense created the situation.

[LionsCoach]

I did speak today to the ump who called the field for our game. It happened that he attended the Reds/Phillies game after our game. There was a Reds' batter who had the third strike dropped. The ball bounced up in front of the batter who was proceeding to run to first and the ball was deflected. The ump told me the Reds' batter/runner was called out.

[GarthB]

Your point being? You see these plays as identical? Obviously your umpire did. And I'm sure some others will. Contact is contact to some.

[chuckfan1]

Ive had the same play a couple times. If the ball got there because of the catcher, why punish the batter/offense? The ball got to wherever it was because the catcher blocked it there. The batter took off for first. If the batter dropped the bat and ran straight to first, I got nothing. If maybe he gave it a little kick or push then maybe.

[Bfair]

I think you really have to look at 2 ways in which the batter can interfere with the catcher "fielding the ball." One is the fielding of the pitch itself before an opportunity to field it has occurred, and the other is when the opportunity to catch the pitch has occurred, the pitch is not caught, and the BR then interferes with the catcher's attempt to retrieve it.

Interference before the opportunity to field the pitch could result from a batter's backswing hitting the catcher. Evans states:

Contrary to rule 6.06(c) Notes, the batter is declared out for interfering on his backswing on a strike three pitch when the batter contacts the catcher or the ball before it is securely held. The ball is dead and no runner may advance.

The other potential arises when the pitch is not caught and is loose as a result of the catcher's inability to glove the pitch. While Fed rule and J/R's interpretation for OBR indicate any such interference after a dropped 3rd strike is loose must be intentional (and unintentional interference is nothing), Evans states differently in the JEA where he provides us these plays:

• Situations: One out...runner on 2nd. The batter swings and misses "Strike 3" in the dirt. The catcher blocks the ball and deflects it in front of the plate. In leaving the batter's box, the batter kicks the ball several feet into foul territory. The runner on 2nd advances to 3rd and the BR is safe at 1st. What's the call?
  
  RULING: The batter is out for hindering the catcher's attempt to field the ball. The ball is dead and the runner returns to 2nd. Though the kick was unintentional, it prevented the catcher from making the play at 1st base. Contact with the ball is not the deciding factor. If the catcher has a legitimate chance to make a play after contact, no interference should be ruled. [my emphasis]
  
  
• One out...runner on 2nd. The batter swings and misses "Strike 3" in the dirt. The batter takes off for 1st and the catcher deflects the ball into him as he is en route to 1st. The runner from 2nd advances to 3rd but the BR is thrown out at 1st. What's the call?
  
  RULING: This ball is alive and in play provided the umpire rules that the batter's actions were not a hindrance to the catcher making a play. This is umpire's judgment.
  Note: When a batter-runner has left the batter's box and is hit from behind by a ball deflected by the catcher, he shall not be called out for interference.

It appears Evans looks not at the mere contact with the ball, but if the severity of the contact (in the umpire's judgment) causes the catcher to lose his opportunity to make a play.

---

While the ruling of no interference is in concrete for Fed, conflict exists between the authorities for OBR. I'm apt to rule in OBR that it's not interference if contact with the ball occurs immediately upon the batter leaving the box before he has had opportunity to see the ball. But after the batter has had opportunity to see the ball, I'd rule that any contact thereafter would be intentional----unless the ball was to contact the fielder from behind him. IMO, after the batter has had opportunity to see and react to the ball, he should be attempting (and required) to avoid it.


Just my opinion,

Freix

[DownTownTonyBrown]

The complexity of the decisions we make as an umpire could easily be considered unfathomable... if it weren't for the fact that we do make those decisions. And we make them in a fraction of a second, again and again.

We are a remarkable group!

QuesTec maybe able to determine the precise location of a pitch but the game would not be possible in the personal flavor in which it is played today without the human interaction of umpires. Wow!

Sorry if this seem a little off key but the above discussion prompted me to make a statement about the complexity of our job. Job well done, all.

[chris s]

Originally posted by DownTownTonyBrown
The complexity of the decisions we make as an umpire could easily be considered unfathomable... if it weren't for the fact that we do make those decisions. And we make them in a fraction of a second, again and again.

We are a remarkable group!

QuesTec maybe able to determine the precise location of a pitch but the game would not be possible in the personal flavor in which it is played today without the human interaction of umpires. Wow!

Sorry if this seem a little off key but the above discussion prompted me to make a statement about the complexity of our job. Job well done, all.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~
DTTB, you are dead to rights on this! I look at it this way, we are gonna piss off 1/2 the folks all the time, most of the time. Making the decision,selling the decision is the sign of a good ump. Type "B" obs is a perfect example, as is this UNCAUGHT THIRD STRIKEwith alleged interference. As we say in Football refereeeing, "was advantage gained?"....cheers pal.....