Sample Play for ASA

CecilOne

Manny A wrote
My rationale is this: A runner is not expected to avoid being contacted by a batted ball that has been deflected by an infielder. So why should we hold him/her to a higher responsibility on a pitched ball that has been deflected by the catcher?
.

I like that reasoning, but it seems to come down to impeding a play or not.

MD Longhorn

If we're going to be consistent with other rulings - generally, if the batter interferes with a potential play, we have an out; but if the batter "interferes" while there is NO potential play, and a play develops because of that "interference", it's just a dead ball - put the runner back.

(B) is nothing.
(A) is - if no play, B/R to first, runner back; if there is a play, B/R out, runner back.

bluejay

My ASA book is from 2011 so perhaps somethng has changed but 8.2.f.6 mentions interference with a dropped third strike which I believe the OP describes. I think most of us know what three things always happen when interference occurs. Dead, out, return.

Andy

bluejay wrote
My ASA book is from 2011 so perhaps somethng has changed but 8.2.f.6 mentions interference with a dropped third strike which I believe the OP describes. I think most of us know what three things always happen when interference occurs. Dead, out, return.

You are correct for a D3K. However, the OP said:

Ball four is in the dirt...

MD Longhorn

bluejay wrote
My ASA book is from 2011 so perhaps somethng has changed but 8.2.f.6 mentions interference with a dropped third strike which I believe the OP describes. I think most of us know what three things always happen when interference occurs. Dead, out, return.

Um ... what?

bluejay

Excuse me. I guess I should read better. Our group recently had a long discussion on the DTK situation and I could not figure out why no one could get it. My bad.

MichaelVA2000

Live ball unless the umpire decides there was interference.

Insane Blue

bluejay wrote
My ASA book is from 2011 so perhaps somethng has changed but 8.2.f.6 mentions interference with a dropped third strike which I believe the OP describes. I think most of us know what three things always happen when interference occurs. Dead, out, return.

Lets say it was a dropped 3rd strike it would only be interference if the kick was intentional. The Batter Runner has a right to run to first on a dropped 3rd strike so they are not doing anything illegal if it is unintentional.

IRISHMAFIA

Insane Blue wrote
Lets say it was a dropped 3rd strike it would only be interference if the kick was intentional. The Batter Runner has a right to run to first on a dropped 3rd strike so they are not doing anything illegal if it is unintentional.

Speaking ASA

No intent is necessary.

tcannizzo

What if F2 intentionally directed the U3K into the feet of the batter?
No response required.:cool:

HugoTafurst

tcannizzo wrote
What if F2 intentionally directed the U3K into the feet of the batter?
No response required.:cool:

Oh, I just noticed the "no response required" not.
So I'll just offer my non-required response which is: 🙄
LOL

CecilOne

I have overruled myself.
If I had to make a ruling, I would apply 8.8.G.1; ball deflected by a defensive player, BR not out, live ball.

Then, if there was a play impeded, INT would apply.

IRISHMAFIA

CecilOne wrote
I have overruled myself.
If I had to make a ruling, I would apply 8.8.G.1; ball deflected by a defensive player, BR not out, live ball.

Then, if there was a play impeded, INT would apply.

8.8: The Runner is Not Out
G. When a runner is off the base
1. Is touched by a ball not securely held by a fielder.

MD Longhorn

IRISHMAFIA wrote
8.8: The Runner is Not Out
G. When a runner is off the base
1. Is touched by a ball not securely held by a fielder.

Agreed.

But Mike (and I think I originally got this notion from you), if the loose ball was at rest (or nearly so), and there was no play going on, and then the new B/R inadvertently contacts the ball such that runners could advance, would you not kill the play? Or did I misinterpret something you said?