8-4-F and 8-7-J-5 vs. POE #32

[greymule]

8-4-F

Runners are entitled to advance with liability to be put out . . . when a fair batted ball has been touched by an infielder, including the pitcher, and the runner did not intentionally interfere with the batted ball or the fielder attempting to field the batted ball.

The bold part was added to the 2003 rule book. Before that, it required that no fielder had a chance to make an out.

8-7-J-5

The runner is out when the runner interferes intentionally with any defensive player having the opportunity to make an out with the deflected batted ball.

The bold part was added to the 2002 rule book. Before that, it said, "If a ball ricochets off one defensive player and any player has the opportunity to make an out, the runner will be ruled out."

POE #32

When a runner is hit by a fair batted ball. . . . It is interference if the batted ball ricochets off one defensive player and any player has the opportunity to make an out.

It appears to me that POE #32 was not revised to reflect the rule changes that made intent a requirement for interference by (1) a runner being hit by a deflected batted ball and (2) a runner interfering with a defensive player attempting to field a deflected batted ball.

Case play 8.8.42 deals with a runner colliding with the shortstop on a deflected ball. The ruling is that unless the interference is intentional, it a live ball, no interference.

None of this conflicts with case play 1.74 or the play Mike posed in the now-closed thread (unless we consider a ball that bounces off F4's chest a deflected ball).

[Dakota]

Originally posted by greymule
(unless we consider a ball that bounces off F4's chest a deflected ball).

Apart from the issue of intent, my response below was intended to show that a ball bouncing off the chest of a player is a deflected ball, even when it is the original player who has the chance to make the out.

[greymule]

If it is a deflected ball, then according to the rules, intent is required for interference. (Intentional interference of course does not necessarily mean deliberate interference.)

I have no problem at all with the test question/answer, which does not specify that the contact was intentional. If F4 is picking up a ball that bounced off his chest, the runner must avoid him just as if F4 was fielding a ground ball. I do have a problem considering this a deflected ball, however. I think F4 has more protection than if the ball had caromed off F1.

The change from "another player" to "any player" occurred in 1999, before ASA added the "intent" clauses in 2002 and 2003. I suspect that ASA's wording was not so carefully wrought as to include a ball off F4's chest as a deflected ball.

We all know of instances in which ASA changed a rule but did not ferret out every other place that the change affected in the rule book. I think POE #32 may be another.

[Edited by greymule on May 7th, 2004 at 06:54 AM]

[ChampaignBlue]

He's got a point there!

[IRISHMAFIA]

Look at it this way. If the ball hasn't been fielded, it is still a batted ball. If the ball hasn't passed the fielder, that fielder is still protected.