Dropped 3rd Strike NFHS

[refd]

Less than 2 outs and first base isn't occupied, batter swings and misses. The catcher drops the ball on the 3rd strike and the ball kicks into fair territory. As the batter runner advances towards first base, she unintentionally makes contact with the ball that is in fair territory.

What is the ruling for NFHS? If she out or do you play on? If the dropped 3rd strike ball is in foul territory and the batter runner makes contact with the ball, does it change the ruling? I am struggling to find a direct interpretation of the rule.

Thanks for any and all help.

[Mbilica]

The ruling is the same as on a thrown ball. Unintentional contact is ignored.

[teebob21]

Rule 8-2-7: "The batter-runner is out when she ... interferes with a dropped third strike." Intent not required. Accidents happen; she's still out.

Case Play 8.2.6 (D), paraphrased: Dropped third strike and the ball bounces off the catcher's shin. The batter runner (a) bumps into the catcher, knocking her down; or (B) accidentally kicks the ball. Answer: Dead-ball out for INT, in both cases (a) and (b).

Of course, it's classic NFHS to list a scenario covered by a specific rule under some other rule section in the case book....le sigh...

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by teebob21

Rule 8-2-7: "The batter-runner is out when she ... interferes with a dropped third strike." Intent not required. Accidents happen; she's still out.

Case Play 8.2.6 (D), paraphrased: Dropped third strike and the ball bounces off the catcher's shin. The batter runner (a) bumps into the catcher, knocking her down; or (B) accidentally kicks the ball. Answer: Dead-ball out for INT, in both cases (a) and (b).

Of course, it's classic NFHS to list a scenario covered by a specific rule under some other rule section in the case book....le sigh...

Same in ASA

[josephrt1]

I understand and agree with the description and explanation on interference with a dropped third strike. And that's how I have called on the rare instances it occurred. But I see another ump who called it on a play that I would have kept live. The play was like this:
1st base open, less than 2 outs. Ball comes inside, hits dirt and catcher blocks and deflects it into the batter. Batter has not attempted to advance yet but ump rings her up for interference. In my view this was not a batter interfering with a dropped third strike. The ball came into her before she even moved.

Two instances where i did call it were: 1)as catcher attempted to pick up ball in LH batter's box, bat got dropped in her path and 2)ball deflected by catcher in front of plate and as she reached for it, runner contacted her.

Your thoughts?

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by josephrt1

I understand and agree with the description and explanation on interference with a dropped third strike. And that's how I have called on the rare instances it occurred. But I see another ump who called it on a play that I would have kept live. The play was like this:
1st base open, less than 2 outs. Ball comes inside, hits dirt and catcher blocks and deflects it into the batter. Batter has not attempted to advance yet but ump rings her up for interference. In my view this was not a batter interfering with a dropped third strike. The ball came into her before she even moved.

Two instances where i did call it were: 1)as catcher attempted to pick up ball in LH batter's box, bat got dropped in her path and 2)ball deflected by catcher in front of plate and as she reached for it, runner contacted her.

Your thoughts?

The rules cited reflect a batter-runner interfering; there is no equivalent rule for a batter that has not yet completed the legal actions of batter that has not yet transitioned into a batter-runner.

It is well established that, except to interfere with a play at the plate, a batter is permitted to occupy the batter's box and not actively interfere with catcher activity. Similarly, a batted ball that hits the batter still standing in the box is not considered interference, either.

If the batter has not yet ended "batter" actions (nor even had a reasonable opportunity to have), then the rule applying only to a batter-runner shouldn't logically be applied.

[teebob21]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

If the batter has not yet ended "batter" actions (nor even had a reasonable opportunity to have), then the rule applying only to a batter-runner shouldn't logically be applied.

To be nitpicky, the batter becomes a batter-runner by rule on a dropped third strike, whether she's completed "batter actions" or not.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by teebob21

To be nitpicky, the batter becomes a batter-runner by rule on a dropped third strike, whether she's completed "batter actions" or not.

And, that's why I said "shouldn't logically" be applied. Not all rules are well written.

[teebob21]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

And, that's why I said "shouldn't logically" be applied. Not all rules are well written.

Got it. Your comment was a commentary on the rules themselves, I missed that. I originally read it as subtle advice to not make a call that the book says we should.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by josephrt1

I understand and agree with the description and explanation on interference with a dropped third strike. And that's how I have called on the rare instances it occurred. But I see another ump who called it on a play that I would have kept live. The play was like this:
1st base open, less than 2 outs. Ball comes inside, hits dirt and catcher blocks and deflects it into the batter. Batter has not attempted to advance yet but ump rings her up for interference. In my view this was not a batter interfering with a dropped third strike. The ball came into her before she even moved.

What made this a U3K?

[josephrt1]

Good question. I worded it pretty poorly. Changed it a bit above. it was a while back and didn't think it thru when i wrote it up.

[Mbilica]

Originally Posted by Mbilica

The ruling is the same as on a thrown ball. Unintentional contact is ignored.

I was clearly wrong on this one. I basically have missed this NFHS rule and associated caseplay for years now. Thanks for posting it. I'm glad I have not yet seen this in a game, since I would have gotten it wrong. I won't get it wrong now...

[refd]

Thanks, I haven't had it in a game that I have umpired but I host tournaments and we play NFHS rules and it has happened twice. Once they called her out, once they came together and called her out and I agreed in both cases. The rule books make it confusing sometimes but thanks for all the clarifications.

[jmkupka]

had a similar situation in a men's FP game, where the backstop was a brick wall, swinging strike 3 goes untouched past F2, ricochets right back into B/R as he's taking his 1st stride out of the box. As it was an "act" I had to kill the play there.