What's the Call?

[hit4power]

I'm not a blue, but here ya go...

Watching Texas Tech v Baylor... Batter swings through strike 3 but pitch bounces off F2's glove and on the ricochet hits the bat while still in the batter's hands and batter still in the box. The contact with the bat sends the ball down the first base line in foul territory and batter beats the throw to 1B. What's the call?

[BretMan]

I believe that in NCAA softball- unlike most other amateur rule sets- interference with an uncaught third strike must be judged as intentional. So there's no rule violation here and the batter-runner is safe.

[teebob21]

Originally Posted by BretMan

I believe that in NCAA softball- unlike most other amateur rule sets- interference with an uncaught third strike must be judged as intentional. So there's no rule violation here and the batter-runner is safe.

Bret is correct.

Too lazy to go to the car and get the current book, but 2014-15 NCAA rule 11.22.9: THE BATTER IS OUT WHEN: The batter swings and misses a pitched ball and then intentionally hits it on a second swing or after it bounces off the catcher or her glove/mitt. (Emphasis mine)

[hit4power]

Interesting....you guys are pointing the rule that I eventually found and so I was confused when...

In real time the PU called the batter out. OC comes out to discuss and then PU huddles with BU's for quite some time. At the end of their discussion, both OC and DC are called in for further discussion. OC is then sent to dugout for a rule book. With rule book the three umpires huddle again. Following that huddle, batter is again ruled out. I could not stick around for the full game so I don't know if an explanation was ever provided to the broadcast booth.

I don't think there is any way the INT could be judged as intentional as the batter was never looking back at F2 to see what was happening. She swung through, then brought the bat back and had it more or less down at her waist with both hands still on it when the contact occurred. Only then did she seem to realize what had happened and took off to 1B.

[IRISHMAFIA]

It is time to get rid of the U3K. There is no real reason for it to exist

[Skahtboi]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

It is time to get rid of the U3K. There is no real reason for it to exist

Do you see that happening?? Not likely. Everyone wants to have their time to do what the preceding generations have done. You know, the tales of brave Ulysses and glory days. Tradition!

[teebob21]

Originally Posted by hit4power

Interesting....you guys are pointing the rule that I eventually found and so I was confused when...

In real time the PU called the batter out. OC comes out to discuss and then PU huddles with BU's for quite some time. At the end of their discussion, both OC and DC are called in for further discussion. OC is then sent to dugout for a rule book. With rule book the three umpires huddle again. Following that huddle, batter is again ruled out. I could not stick around for the full game so I don't know if an explanation was ever provided to the broadcast booth.

I don't think there is any way the INT could be judged as intentional as the batter was never looking back at F2 to see what was happening. She swung through, then brought the bat back and had it more or less down at her waist with both hands still on it when the contact occurred. Only then did she seem to realize what had happened and took off to 1B.

If D1 umpires went to the book on the field, then there was a protest.

From your description the proper protest procedure was followed. Rule 7.2; NCAA. Only rules can be protested, not judgment. (Exception 7.2.3; protests may involve rules+judgment if a judgment call is made using a misapplied rule.)

First the "offended" coach claims that the umpires have made a rule misinterpretation. Next, the coach must indicate which rule has been improperly applied. This is where the book comes out. Then the crew gets together with the book, at which time the OC and DC can provide input (<< I honestly don't understand this part, but whatever.) Finally, a ruling is communicated to both teams. EDIT TO ADD: If the offended team still doesn't like the result, they can continue play under protest provided they file a written report after the game.

There is rule support for an INT out here. Again from the 14-15 book, because I am still lazy 12.19.1.3: The batter runner may not interfere with the catcher's attempt to field a third strike. This rule does not require intent. If that was the rule by which the BR was declared out, I think the out properly stands.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Skahtboi

Do you see that happening?? Not likely. Everyone wants to have their time to do what the preceding generations have done. You know, the tales of brave Ulysses and glory days. Tradition!

No, but I don't see anything "brave" or remember many heroic stories about an U3K.

[BretMan]

Originally Posted by teebob21

12.19.1.3: The batter runner may not interfere with the catcher's attempt to field a third strike. This rule does not require intent. If that was the rule by which the BR was declared out, I think the out properly stands.

What about the next couple of sentences from that rule?

12.19.1.3 The batter-runner may not interfere with the catcher’s attempt to field a third strike.
Note: If both players’ actions are appropriate to the situation and contact could not be avoided, it is incidental contact and neither interference nor obstruction.
A.R. 12.19.1.3: The batter-runner unintentionally kicks the ball that had deflected off the catcher who attempted to field a dropped third strike. RULING: Live ball, no interference.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by BretMan

What about the next couple of sentences from that rule?

12.19.1.3 The batter-runner may not interfere with the catcher’s attempt to field a third strike.
Note: If both players’ actions are appropriate to the situation and contact could not be avoided, it is incidental contact and neither interference nor obstruction.
A.R. 12.19.1.3: The batter-runner unintentionally kicks the ball that had deflected off the catcher who attempted to field a dropped third strike. RULING: Live ball, no interference.

Bret:

In the 2016 and 2017 NCAA Softball Rules Book it is 12.19.1.2 and A.R. 12.19.1.2.

It is the humble opinion of Mark, Jr., and myself that the B/R should have been ruled safe.

MTD, Sr.

[MT 73]

What about NFHS and USA?
Is the ruling the same as NCAA?

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by MT 73

What about NFHS and USA?
Is the ruling the same as NCAA?

No.

BR is out. Intent is not a factor. In both NFHS and ASA. (Yes, ASA!... Get off my lawn!)

[Tru_in_Blu]

Originally Posted by Dakota

No.

BR is out. Intent is not a factor. In both NFHS and ASA. (Yes, ASA!... Get off my lawn!)

Didn't you claim that you woke up?

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by Tru_in_Blu

Didn't you claim that you woke up?

No, I said he did.

[Tru_in_Blu]

Dakota
Official Forum Member Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Twin Cities MN
Posts: 8,013

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skahtboi View Post
I was just getting ready to post the same things. Well done. Seems you always beat me to it, even when we both take off massive amounts of time from the forum!

Ha ha... Cecil woke me up in the nick of time!

I think he at least acknowledged waking up. Daylight savings time may come a bit later where he's at.