Base Awards?

[cmcallm]

Here's the play: NCAA rules. Runner on 1st, two out, two strikes on the batter. The batter swings at a pitch in the dirt (strike three), which the catcher blocks and which rolls in front of the plate. The batter takes off for first and INADVERTANTLY kicks the ball, which rolls into the dugout.

Is there a penalty? Is there a base award? Who goes where?

This happened in a D3 tournament game this Spring! LONG discussion by umpires and coaches, and rule books were consulted (nothing specific found there). Umpires finally ruled since the kick was inadvertant, there was no interference on the batter. So far, so good. They also ruled that, since the defense did not cause the ball to go into the dugout, the batter would get first and the runner on first would get second. Do you agree?

cmcallm

[Alan G]

I'm not sure why it would matter that it was inadvertent. When a runner is hit by a batted ball, it need not be deliberate. The problem, as I see it, is that this is not a batted ball, so it's not a "fair ball" either, I guess.

I think this is NCAA also, but in OBR I might try to appeal to 6.06(c) which gets the batter for interfering with the catcher's fielding or throwing by stepping out of the batter's box. I think that rule is not intended for this situation, but rather for interference during steals. But the batter was out of the box, inadvertently kicked the ball, and in doing so interfered with the catcher's fielding. I'm calling dead ball, batter out. (At least I think that's better than the decision made on the field.)

On the other issue, if there is a base award, why isn't it two bases? If the ball had hit first base and bounced into the dugout, the defense would not have put it there. But the award would be two bases, right?

A few years back, I had a similar play. Ground ball in front of plate, pitcher throws to first, ball bounces off F3's glove landing behind the bag. BR, who passed first base, inadvertently kicks the ball down the right field foul line. Here, the BR did not try to advance, although he could have. (I didn't kill the play, but I think the runner thought HE had killed the play. ) At the time I wondered, "Suppose he had inadvertently kicked the ball into the dead ball area? Would I have to award him second (or third!)?" (Second, I guess: First play by an infielder, TOP award, since batter had not reached first at time of throw. And if batter had passed first at TOT, then third! The third base award would be hard to sell.)

Any thoughts on that question?



[Edited by Alan G on Oct 2nd, 2000 at 10:51 PM]

[Thom Coste]

Originally posted by Alan G
I'm not sure why it would matter that it was inadvertent. When a runner is hit by a batted ball, it need not be deliberate. The problem, as I see it, is that this is not a batted ball, so it's not a "fair ball" either, I guess.

I think this is NCAA also, but in OBR I might try to appeal to 6.06(c) which gets the batter for interfering with the catcher's fielding or throwing by stepping out of the batter's box. I think that rule is not intended for this situation, but rather for interference during steals. But the batter was out of the box, inadvertently kicked the ball, and in doing so interfered with the catcher's fielding. I'm calling dead ball, batter out. (At least I think that's better than the decision made on the field.)

On the other issue, if there is a base award, why isn't it two bases? If the ball had hit first base and bounced into the dugout, the defense would not have put it there. But the award would be two bases, right?

A few years back, I had a similar play. Ground ball in front of plate, pitcher throws to first, ball bounces off F3's glove landing behind the bag. BR, who passed first base, inadvertently kicks the ball down the right field foul line. Here, the BR did not try to advance, although he could have. (I didn't kill the play, but I think the runner thought HE had killed the play. ) At the time I wondered, "Suppose he had inadvertently kicked the ball into the dead ball area? Would I have to award him third?" I think the answer is "yes" but it would have been tough to sell that one.

Any thoughts on that question?

First of all, you have a thrown ball, not a batted ball, and the batter-runner did not intentionally kick the ball so the batter-runner is not out. Furthermore, the batter-runner did not interfere with the catcher's opportunity to field the thrown ball. The catcher already had his shot and he missed it. So the inadvertent kick by the batter-runner is incidental. Finally, this ball is considered to be thrown from the pitcher's plate: The award would be one base or two bases depending on what caused the ball to go out of play. In this play, the umpire decides the kick caused the ball to go out of play, the award is two bases. Jim Evans uses the terms "directly" out of play or "subsequently caused" to go out of play for the distinction.

Thom Coste
Member UT

[Alan G]

At least I got the base award right!

(It never occurred to me that the umpires might have been ruling that this was "one from the mound," but that's probably what they were doing. I agree, that doesn't apply here.)

[Edited by Alan G on Oct 2nd, 2000 at 11:08 PM]

[GarthB]

Thom Coste wrote: "First of all, you have a thrown ball, not a batted ball..."

However, just to give you another thing to consider, don't you really have a "pitched" ball, not a "thrown" ball?
Is the ball still a pitch at the time of the kick?

We had a great debate on UT about his sometime ago, but what do you think?

Garth Benham
Contact, eUmpire

[Thom Coste]

Originally posted by GarthB
Thom Coste wrote: "First of all, you have a thrown ball, not a batted ball..."

However, just to give you another thing to consider, don't you really have a "pitched" ball, not a "thrown" ball?
Is the ball still a pitch at the time of the kick?

We had a great debate on UT about his sometime ago, but what do you think?

Garth Benham
Contact, eUmpire

My first reaction was just that - still a pitched ball and a one base award. But since I don't know NCAA rules real well, I looked up the rulings in Carl's BRD and Jim Evans' annotated rules. They both lead me to believe that, because the ball was kicked by the BR it becomes a two-base award, as opposed to the one-base award if the pitched ball had caromed off the catcher's shin guard directly out of play.

The ruling would be based on initial force or new impetus in Federation play.

[Rog]

Without the aid of any manuals, I find it interesting to say the least that the offense would gain an extra base (2 bases versus a single base award) for kicking a live ball out of play, unintentionally or otherwise!
So, I'm guessing we've got a dropped third strike; with, weak interference. Inning over!

Originally posted by GarthB
Thom Coste wrote: "First of all, you have a thrown ball, not a batted ball..."

However, just to give you another thing to consider, don't you really have a "pitched" ball, not a "thrown" ball?
Is the ball still a pitch at the time of the kick?

We had a great debate on UT about his sometime ago, but what do you think?

Garth Benham
Contact, eUmpire

[Edited by Rog on Oct 3rd, 2000 at 12:33 PM]

[DrC.]

Hey guys - Hold up for a minute and let's think about this one (using some common sense). The batter swung at a ball in the dirt. It bounces off the catcher where if not accidently kicked by the BR would most likely be picked up and thrown to 1st for an out. The batter made a bad play and the catcher a nice Block. Now some of you want to award the batter another base. I say no way. I would only give him 1st base (I would strongly claim a ball from the pitchers' plate is 1 base). We award bases to the offense for a bad defensive play, not for an offensive play. I can see the defensive coach argue for Batters interference, and the next thing is you are putting him on 2nd. That's adding fuel to the fire. But that's just my opinion.....

[cmcallm]

With regards to the base awards: If the pitch hits the ground, then drills the batter, then goes into the dugout, it's a pitched ball going into dead ball territory. The ruling here should be the same, as long as the batter didn't INTENTIONALLY kick it into the dugout. I figured this different slant might help clarify things.

cmcallm

[Thom Coste]

Originally posted by DrC.
Hey guys - Hold up for a minute and let's think about this one (using some common sense). The batter swung at a ball in the dirt. It bounces off the catcher where if not accidently kicked by the BR would most likely be picked up and thrown to 1st for an out. The batter made a bad play and the catcher a nice Block. Now some of you want to award the batter another base. I say no way. I would only give him 1st base (I would strongly claim a ball from the pitchers' plate is 1 base). We award bases to the offense for a bad defensive play, not for an offensive play. I can see the defensive coach argue for Batters interference, and the next thing is you are putting him on 2nd. That's adding fuel to the fire. But that's just my opinion.....

If the catcher had made such a great play, we wouldn't be in this pickle. While I can't disagree with your feeling toward the play, we have to go to the authoritative opinion to get the answer.

Ah-ha! The plot thickens, because even Jaksa/Roder says that OBR 7.05(h), which is the OBR section dealing with this question, is "Vague or Ambiguous." J/R says "Every runner is awarded his advance base when a pitch or in-contact throw enters DBT ... Unless a subsequent push occurs, whereupon the award is two bases." "A subsequent push of a pitch or in-contact throw occurs when such pitch or throw is errant, remains on the playing field, and is subsequently kicked or deflected, causing the ball to enter DBT ..." All of the examples, however, deal with subsequent pushes by fielders, which would make the two-base award seem appropriate. But this was a question about the batter-runner who, UNINTENTIONALLY, kicked the ball out of play. How about interference, you ask? Carl Childress to the rescue. His BRD Update 2000 revives play #250, which effectively states that in FED and NCAA, a batter-runner must INTENTIONALLY interfere, or no interference shall be called and the result of the play stands. In OBR, the umpire must make a judgement on the impact of the act on the play and may rule interference or not.

Not fair, you say? Offense gets an extra base by kicking the ball? The defense could have done a better job keeping the ball under control and we wouldn't be here, right? I'll offer a different but similar scenario, and you decide: R2, R3, B1 grounds to F6. F6 comes home with the throw, but it's in the dirt in front of the plate. F2 blocks it but it goes up the line where the sliding R3 kicks it just as F2 was about to pick it up. The ball rolls into the dugout before F3 can stop it. Run scores and two bases for the others, right? No interference. This play is similar because: a)It was the offense that kicked the ball out of play; b)The ball would not have gone out of play but for the kick; c) The kick was unintentional.

Clear? Clear as mud, I'm sure.

I see that cmcallm (You started this) has chipped in while I was writing this. In FED you may rule the the original impetus of the pitch has not been spent, and you may rule that it is a one base award. According to the other sources, I don't see that luxury in NCAA or OBR - but I'll bet you could get away with it!

I'm also sure I'll catch hell from someone if I'm wrong.

Thom Coste
Member UT

[Carl Childress]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Thom Coste
[B]

Originally posted by DrC.
But this was a question about the batter-runner who, UNINTENTIONALLY, kicked the ball out of play. How about interference, you ask? Carl Childress to the rescue. His BRD Update 2000 revives play #250, which effectively states that in FED and NCAA, a batter-runner must INTENTIONALLY interfere, or no interference shall be called and the result of the play stands. In OBR, the umpire must make a judgement on the impact of the act on the play and may rule interference or not.

Thom: NCAA 7-11o is clear: If the batter-runner does not intentionally interfere with the dropped third strike, the umpire should not call interference.

My "opinion" is that Evans is right: The B-R should be out if he kicks that ball accidentally, where the kick prevents the catcher from making a play. But....

My "opinion" is not the FED nor the NCAA rule. You asked about college. Here is the exact language of the book:

"[The batter-runner is out when he] intentionally interferes with the catcher's attempt to field a third strike."

Their theory is, as you suggested: The catcher had his chance and blew it. We may moan and groan all we like: In your game the B-R was not out.

But you said you guys consulted a book. It must have been a cook book, 'cause 7-11o is fairly specific. (grin)

[Warren Willson]

Thom Coste wrote:

"In FED you may rule the the original impetus of the pitch has not been spent, and you may rule that it is a one base award. According to the other sources, I don't see that luxury in NCAA or OBR - but I'll bet you could get away with it!

I'm also sure I'll catch hell from someone if I'm wrong."

---

Thom,

In OBR, the fact is that you don't have to award ANY bases! If you apply OBR 7.09(a) and declare the batter-runner interfered with the catcher's play, the ball is immediately dead, the batter-runner is out and runners return! That seems pretty fair to me. Here is what Evans says about this rule:

"Professional Interpretation: The original rule implied that the interference (hindrance) had to be intentional. Under today's interpretation, interference which is considered accidental (or unintentional) may be just cause or invoking the penalty in certain situations, e.g. (1) batter accidentally strikes catcher on backswing knocking ball loose; (2) batter kicks a ball on the ground out of catcher's grasp as he starts for 1st base. These are accidental acts which may be adjudged to be interference (umpire's judgment). Any intentional act on the other hand shall always be penalized."

I think (2) above pretty well describes the play in question. Therefore, if you are dealing with OBR rather than NCAA rules, you can rule that it was interference with the catcher's play under OBR 7.09(a), take comfort that intent isn't required and see to it that the offense doesn't profit from its own act, whether inadvertant or not. Wouldn't you agree?

Cheers,

Warren Willson

[PeteBooth]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by cmcallm
[B]Here's the play: NCAA rules. Runner on 1st, two out, two strikes on the batter. The batter swings at a pitch in the dirt (strike three), which the catcher blocks and which rolls in front of the plate. The batter takes off for first and INADVERTANTLY kicks the ball, which rolls into the dugout.

To me this is no different than the following: 1 Out r1.
BR hits a single to right and r1 rounds second heading to third. The throw from F9 is in the dirt, hits F5 and also either hits r1 or rolls in front of him - We wouldn't call out r1 for interference on this play.

The play in question is a dropped third strike by F2 - The ball subsequently went off F2 and in the field of play. The only way I would then call out BR is for INTENTIONAL interference as I believe this was the INTENT of the rule.

Referree Magazine had a good article this month - basically saying that an umpire should use good sound judgement in making rulings and in order to do this - the INTENT of the rule should be of value.

Now reality check. It's a dropped third strike, B1 takes off for first as fast as he can (which he is supposed to)
it's not B1's fault that F2 did not field ball clealy, so in all fairness, unless B1 INTENTIONALLY kicks the ball, I have nothing.

Pete Booth

As far as awards

[Alan G]

Let me see if I've got this.

In NCAA, the batter is NOT out, so base awards need to be made. (Is it definite that in NCAA, the inadvertent kick puts the batter on second? or is this still considered a pitch, so "one from the mound"?)

In OBR (Jim Evans interpretation) the batter is out for interference, dead ball, and (in this case) inning over.

Does that sum it up?

[PeteBooth]

[

In OBR (Jim Evans interpretation) the batter is out for interference, dead ball, and (in this case) inning over.

From Warren Wilson's response above quoting Evans: "These are accidental acts which may be adjudged to be interference (umpire's judgment). Any intentional act on the other hand shall always be penalized."

So if I read the quotes from Evans properly Using OBR - "boils down" to Umpire Judgement not necesarily BR out for interference. Evans uses the term may be adjudged to be interference which the way I interpret means - Umpire Judgement.

As Papac C responded FED / NCAA have actual rulings on this type of play - OBR leaves it up to the judgement of the umpire.

As I responded originally, in OBR the actual INTENT of the interference infraction would lead one to the proper ruling.
Also, since this is not a batted ball situation, intent does come into play.

Pete Booth