I found situation #3 particularly interesting:
Baseball rules corner: here's a quiz to test your knowledge of the rulebook - Brief Article | Baseball Digest | Find Articles

It says:

3. With Darin Erstad on second base for the Angels, a wild pitch eludes Toronto catcher Darrin Fletcher. The ball bounces toward the backstop and near the Blue Jays' ball boy. Trying to get out of the way, he accidentally kicks the ball and the runner takes an extra base to score. The umpire properly allows the play to stand. True or False?

Although the interpretation does not involve a player, I'm wondering if the philosophy holds true to players.

3. False. Even though the interference was accidental, a "kick" is considered intentional and the extra-base advance is nullified. Erstad should be returned to third. (3.15).

The reason I asked this question in the first place is because, somewhere in the recesses of my mind, I recall some interpretation like this - that if a player "kicks" a live ball, it is always considered intentional because it is too easy to mask an intentional kick with a seemingly "accidental", natural running motion. So, no matter how "accidental" it may have seemed - the fact of the matter is that runner kicked the ball as opposed to the ball simply hitting the runner. The runner actively did something.

But, like I said, I'm not sure of this.

You guys seem to think that, despite the runner "kicking" the ball, the umpire can still rule it as "accidental". OK - that seems reasonable enough.

I had sour thumb once, it sucked, LOL!

If a batter/runner touches a live ball in certain situations, they are going to be out no matter why they touched the ball. The issue of being contacting the ball intentionally comes into play with interference and preventing the defense from making a play on the ball. But if a batter/runner is out of the batter's box and touches the ball with their leg or anything else for that matter, they are going to be out no matter why they touched the ball. I think you are over-thinking the aspect of whether it is intentional or not.

Peace

It does, but we read each others' minds all the time. When I say "nice call," you read my mind (judge my intent) to speak sincerely or sarcastically. Every word we speak requires interpretation, which is a way of reading minds. Happens all the time, every day, and it's no big deal.

1. A runner high tailing it down to 1st base gets tangled with the ball but continues running.
2. Same runner heads to 1st sees F1 coming to get the ball laying next to the line. Runner swipes the ball with his foot.

Which one do you think is intentional? It's not rocket science, it's called umpiring.

Pretty sure I agree with everything in your very wordy post. But Jeff, how does a "sour thumb" stick out?:)

I think the point of the interpretation that I vaguely recall reading (i.e. kicking the ball is always intentional) is that it is far too easy to "kick" a ball that is in your path and make it appear as an accident. It's easy to kick the ball without even breaking stride. This would particularly be the case on a ball slowly rolling near the 1st base foul line, in the path of the runner, when the batter is convinced he is likely going to be thrown out should the ball roll into fair territory. So he "kicks" it! Oops! Yeah, right.

David,
You may be remembering this situation in the MLBUM:

6.11 Batter interferes after a third strike not caught
OBR 7.09(a) provides that the batter-runner be called out for interference if "after a third strike he hinders the catcher in his attempt to field the ball."

Play: First base unoccupied or two out. Strike three not caught. B-R unintentionally kicks, touches, or otherwise deflects the pitched ball that was not caught by the catcher. Catcher is unable to make a play.

Ruling: If this occurs in the vicinity of home plate, the ball is alive and in play. However, if this occurs up the first base line (where the B-R has had time to avoid the ball), interference is called, the B-R is declared out, and runners return to base occupied at the time of the pitch.

The key phrase is "where the B-R has had time to avoid the ball". Instead of trying to determine the B/R's intentions, determine if he had a reasonable amount of time to avoid.

Note that contrary to what was posted earlier, this does not mean that any kick is intentional--just the ones where the player had time to avoid.

Dave, there is a difference in the rule between that situation and the situation in the OP. In the OP, the rule explicitly requires that there to be intent in order to declare the batter-runner out.

Yes, Welpe, I know that. My post is in response to, and possibly adds useful info to Posts #4, 16, and 22. It speaks directly to the notion (mentioned, but not asserted, by David Emerling) that any kicked ball is considered to have been intentionally kicked.

Or, in internet-speak, try to keep up.:D

I guess my point is this, a runner can easily "kick" a ball without necessarily doing anything obvious that makes it an easy call of "intentional".

When I say that the batter-runner "kicks" the ball, many of you are probably envisioning the runner breaking stride and taking a swipe at the ball with his foot. Yes, that would clearly be intentional. No brainer.

I'm not talking about winding up like a soccer player taking a penalty kick. Of course that would be an easy ruling of "intentional".

Since a natural running motion necessarily involves rapidly placing one foot in front of the other - a runner could easily convert that running motion into a "kick" without even breaking stride. It could look completely natural and unintentional when, in fact, it was completely intentional.

Therefore, I'm thinking that for the purpose of standardization and consistency, if a runner "kicks" a foul ball that has the potential to be fair - the runner is OUT because all "kicks" are deemed intentional - by interpretation. And, as Dave Reed pointed out, this would be particularly true in situations where the ball has rolled up the line some distance where the batter had a reasonable amount of time to avoid the ball - even if the runner did not seem to do anything intentional. The fact that he did not avoid the ball and "accidentally" kicked it is considered intention enough no matter how "unintentional" it may have appeared.

(Thinking out loud mode) No reading of the mind is necessary. That ball had the potential to be fair and you kicked it. It doesn't matter how it looked. You're out! You had a choice to run around the ball or step over it and you chose to do neither.

Just to complicate things ...

Let's say the runner does something that seems to be a clear attempt to avoid the ball. For instance, like attempting to jump over it and, in the process, he ends up "kicking" it. (How's this for beating a dead horse?) :)

David,

You are really making this more complicated than it needs to be. It is not hard to see in baseball when someone goes out of their way to contact the ball. It is not hard to figure out in other sports and situations, so it will not be hard in baseball if you have seen enough plays in baseball to know what is common and uncommon to the game. If you need some detailed way to make this call so be it, but you will be judged on the quality of the calls you make in some basic situations. And as I said before, this is so rare of a situation I would not worry about something that might not even realistically happen once a season.

Peace

You're missing the point. You say when someone goes "out of their way". I'm specifically talking when somebody does not seem to go "out of their way."

Clearly, when somebody goes "out of their" way it becomes an easy call. We all understand that.

I'm talking about the unique situation when a very viable argument can be made that something was accidental - and maybe it was - yet is ruled as intentional.

Already, within this thread, there has been some mild disagreement on the play.

My point to you David, this is usually so unique that you would be able to see an act that was trying to get an advantage from some type of movement. If you cannot tell, then make the right call that is appropriate to the situation. Otherwise, this seems to be something that you act like has to be like a soccer motion or that they have to do something so obvious to be called or realized. As I said before, this would be so rare of a situation, I think any experienced umpire could make the right call if it was intentional. Remember you can be called out for contacting a live ball without doing anything intentional, so why worry so much about a situation that would have to have a perfect set of circumstances to even rule on an intentional act?

Peace

Dave - you are over thinking and over analyzing this whole thing. You knew the answer when you posted and if not. you definitely know it now. It's a simple rule and you get paid to be an umpire which means making occasional decisions.

I mean 2, going on 3 pages?
Really?