batter accidentally kicks foul ball
 

The batter hits a slow roller toward 1st base. The ball is barely in foul territory when the batter accidentally kicks the ball while running to 1st. It is unclear whether the ball would have remained foul. Ruling? (both FED and OBR)

OBR 6.05(i) Batter is out when....After hitting or bunting a foul ball, he intentionally deflects the course of the ball in any manner while running to first base. The ball is dead and no runners may advance;...

FED 7-4-1(i) Batter is out when ... he intentionally deflects a foul ball which has a chance of becoming fair.

accidentlly = foul ball

I think that we should start thanking members for looking up rules for posters who can't be bothered to even try.

Thank you rbmartin

The reason I asked the question has much more to do with the interpretation of "accidentally" and "intentionally". I'm perfectly aware of these rules as written.

I have heard it said that a "kick" (even if running and even if it seems accidental) is always interpreted as "intentional" for the purpose of such rules that require intent.

I once kicked a chair leg while walking through the kitchen barefooted. It was not intentional. It still hurt though.

Right, so you know the rule (I knew you did, by the way) and the rest is your judgement. In your opinion, did the batter "kick" the ball (intentional) or did his foot contact the ball while he was running (he made no odd movement, he just ran and contacted the ball - therefore, unintentional).

This is why some people are afraid to post:(

I could have sworn this was an umpire forum where fellow officials could ask questions and kick around thoughts regarding their interps. Around this area, we strive to mentor those who ask. Sometimes we provide rule book answers and other times we simply listen and offer advice. Why is it that some feel compelled to ridicule others for simply asking a question in this forum? :confused::(

The answer seems pretty straight forward and rb did a great job of hadnling it. Thanks for helping.

On almost every thread on this site, you can find at least 1 post meant to belittle or ridicule someone. Aren't we all on the same team?:D

I think the original post said he accidentally kicked. I don't know why that needs additional questioning.

Thank you rbmartin, posting should have stopped there.

Immunity?
 

OP is different. Ball is fair, moving down 1st base line. Runner is running behind the slow roller and makes contact with the ball before the ball has passed a fielder. Foul within batter's box and out further up the baseline.

Accidently= Foul Ball

pretty simple answer here. If the batter meant to kick the ball he is out, if the umpire reads his mind and see that he did not mean to kick the ball it was purely an accidental kick, foul ball! :)

I always heard no official can read minds, but the rule expect you to!
:mad:

Judging intent does not necessarily include reading minds.

I love how you try to use one sport about a word and bring it immediately to another sport on a totally unrelated issue. Someone kicking something that they are not in control of or is not in their hand is very easy to identify as compared to where someone is trying to throw something. As a basketball official we do this determination all the time. A baseball is a smaller object and if someone is trying to kick a baseball while moving and may or may not be in their way to see what they are trying to do to contact it or not. And it is not really likely that a baseball is going to be kicked on purpose in many situations as it would possibly put that player in jeopardy of being called out and for contacting a live ball and players tend to realize that fact. Usually a batter is going to try to avoid getting hit unless the ball is obviously foul is not only unlikely for that situation to take place, it would be very rare to even take place in a single game based on all the sets of circumstances that would be needed to even have a realistic scenario of someone intentionally kicking a ball. A player in another sport that performs an act that is seen 50 times or more in a game is a little different to determine what is done intentionally to something that might not happen in 50 games an umpire might work. Batter trying to kick a ball on purpose would stick out like a sour thumb compared with all the things we have to do in a baseball game.

Peace

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?

Oh, stop your whining. Nobody is twisting your arm to read any of this. If you don't like it - don't read it! Grow up.

These are the places to "over think" things. If not here - then where?

Discussions between umpires on technical matters are often academic for the purposes of understanding nuances and rare interpretations. That's why one of the STUPIDEST things an umpire can say in an internet discussion of a rule between umpires is "That would never happen in a game" or "I've never seen that happen in my life". That is code for "I really don't understand the details of the rule."

Find something else to concern yourself with other than how much I type or how many pages a thread takes up. What - are you printing them out and wasting ink on your printer? Besides, it's nothing to me since I can type like the wind. Shall I use simpler words for you?

I would say that your posting in this forum FAR exceeds my own - by orders of magnitude - and I could care less. Type away for all I care! That's the beauty of the internet - you can participate or not participate to whatever extent you desire. But to complain about it is the height of immaturity.

In fact, your first contribution to this thread may have been the most pointless post of them all.

Mental masturbation, like the other more common variety, should be done in private.

"Over thinking" is rarely, if ever, a good thing, no matter where it is done.

I can tell you from considerable experience that when these kinds of issues are discussed in actual discussion meetings, it usually drives a lot of people crazy. Not only is the rule rather clear, you are trying to pick nits in order to get some understanding for something that is very unlikely to take place. I think our job as umpires should be to get and call the obvious, not worry about things that may never happen in the depths of our minds. So you can think this is the place to discuss such a nuance, but that does not take away from the fact that it still drives people crazy. You can disagree with that take, but this is true on many levels for many officials/umpires that I have come in contact with over the years. There always seems to be "that guy" that has to discuss or bring up things in a meeting when no one but him is confused about the situation. Or appears to be confused, but really is not confused. Now another thing I also find interesting, most people here that came to your defense, certainly are not here having the conversation with you either. Oh well. ;)

Peace

That's the difference and beauty of the internet - these type of discussions do not have to waste your time if they don't interest you - much unlike an umpire meeting where you have to sit and endure something of no value or interest to you. At a meeting, the audience is held hostage. That is not the case here.

You can't be guilty of wasting people's time here. Because they don't have to be here. They can pick which threads to read and not to read. They can create their own topics. Complaining about wasting people's time in an internet forum is just plain idiotic!

Besides, I disagree with your characterization that this discussion is some esoteric, never-can-happen, not important topic - as evidenced by the conflicting views/interpretations on something that is not all that unusual, in my opinion. Nobody is picking nits here. It's a discussion of "intent" and interpretation of "intent" on a rule that REQUIRES a determination of "intent".

BTW, I don't need nor care for people to come to my defense. The fact that you even have to mention that speaks volumes of the tone of this forum.

You are right; no one has to be here at all. And because it is the internet, no one has to tell you that everything you say on a site like this is not silly or stupid either. It does go both ways.

When you post anything on the internet, you will get comments from time to time that are not to your liking. Now you can either get used to that, or go somewhere else too.

Now I do not feel you are really wasting my time, but I felt your issue was silly and kind of juvenile. Just an opinion, I am sure you are a great guy but not sure why you are splitting hairs over words on what is once again, a rare situation that will not happen to most of us anytime soon.


Again, you are making a mountain out of a molehill. If you really cannot tell what someone does accidentally or intentionally in relation to kicking a baseball then I have to wonder about you as an umpire. In basketball for example it is rather obvious when someone tries to intentionally kick a ball or use their leg to contact the ball which is illegal in all cases. And that is a very common occurrence in that sport. You are talking about something that would be likely very easy to see or to identify, especially at the lower levels. And if you saw it one way and a coach for example saw it another way, that is after all why you get paid the big bucks. But if you want a perfect example or understanding that everyone here or anyone is going to agree with, you are not going to really find one. One thing experience has taught me is to trust my judgment and experience. Maybe that is what you should do and call what you see and stop trying to find a key to follow that the people you work around might not agree with either.

I guess at the end of the day I am just wondering why you do not trust your own judgment and call it how you see it.

Peace

... because I'm wondering if there is some interpretation that trumps one's opinion of intent.

If you're not aware of such an interpretation that gives the umpire guidance in this area - then just say so - and the discussion would be over.

If your answer is: "I just call it the way I see it." Fine.

The reason they have interpretations (and they do exist) is to provide guidance and consistency to rulings that are not always obvious.

People have told you what the rule was and did not give you one. You would think that alone would make you see the light bulb above your head.

My answer is, the rule was shown to you in black and white. Since we are telling each other what we should have done, you should have said, "OK" back on the second response and let it die. Hardly anyone would have said anything to you at that point.

Peace

If it's all in black-and-white, then I wonder why a mountain of interpretations and official rulings exist.

I'll mail you an English-Portuguese dictionary. I'll expect you to be able to speak Portuguese fluently. After all, it's all in black-and-white. :)

This particular rule is very clear. I did not say all rules and all wording was perfect or did not need further interpretation or further explanation. But there is nothing about this rule is confusing unless you do not understand what intentional and accidental means. If you were asking about another rule and another situation, then OK. But you asked about one of the most clear and concise rules and seem to have trouble with the wording and asking for something that does not need much interpretation or casebook understanding.

Peace

Every time you post, the rule is shown to you, you argue it, you try to dissect it to suit your needs and you carry on and on. As one said earlier, this is akin to masturbation which should be carried out in a private place. I shall not respond to you blathering posts any longer.

Pax

I had this situation last night at a LL match:

A batter's swing hits the ball up and towards first base. It bounces two feet inside fair territory about 30 feet down first base line. The spin carries it sharply towards foul territory, where it deflected off the batter-runner's right shin, which was about even with the running lane line (at least two feet in foul territory).
I immediately call foul ball. Defense's coach wants me to call the batter out. I refuse stating contact was made in foul territory. I reset, and continue play with the foul ball call. My partner, who has played since his childhood, called for decades and is old as the mountains, showed no reservations about my call.
Do the other members here feel that the case described above is a foul ball, an out, or something else?

Hmmm... wondering if that'll work... I doubt it, but I'll try... here goes:I'm not aware of such an interpretation that gives the umpire guidance in this area.

jchamp, If the batted ball was over foul territory when touched, then your call was correct.

jchamp,
From the LL 2008 RIM:
6.05 -- A batter is out when -
(h) after hitting or bunting a foul ball, that runner intentionally deflects the course of the ball in any manner while running to first base. The ball is dead and no runners may advance;
INSTRUCTOR COMMENTS:
⇒ Notice that intent only applies to a batted ball in foul territory. If the batter unintentionally deflects a foul ball, he/she is not out, but the ball is dead (foul ball).


Presumably you judged that the contact was not intentional. Clearly it is a foul ball.

Intentionally or accidentally?