What is the correct ruling?

[mcrowder]

I'm waiting for the coach who learns of this and teaches his right/left fielders and 1B/3B-men to bean on-deck hitters in order to get outs on the basepaths.

[WestMichBlue]

Your post just beat mine, MC, but I think we see it the same way (see dodgeball II)
***************************************

"If we are to treat a throw that hits the on-deck batter as a blocked ball,"

Not IF, but WHY. Why are we considering calling this a blocked ball when the rule doesn't support it? Can someone provide an official document or interpretation that overrides the printed rule?

Definition: A Blocked Ball is a ..... thrown ball that is touched . . . . . by a person not engaged in the game. . . . .

It is obvious whom that applies to: spectator, media, trainer, ground crew, etc. It is equally obvious who it does not apply to: PLAYERS, coaches, umpires.

So if blocked ball is out, that only leaves us with interference. As far as 7.1.E, I think that is a natural follow-up to 7.1.D which allowed the on-deck batter to leave the circle and take a position of her choosing - just don't get in the way! If you interfere with a defender and we will call a runner out.

However - to suggest that an on-deck batter that is beaned by a bad throw can be charged with interference simply because a runner is running somewhere, and a defender sometime in the future will go the backstop and pick up a ball to make an out as some as-of-yet unknown base - is ludicrous IMO.

Come in Tom - time to introduce DakotaÂ’s DodgeBall II rules.
#1 - don't throw to catcher, she might drop the ball.
#2 – o-d batter is easier target; she probably is not even looking. Bean her and the runner going home is out.

If it happens to me, I will make a decision based on where the o-d batter is located. If she prevented the ball from reaching itÂ’s intended target, then Interference. If she is merely an innocent bystander, then live ball, play on. Defense gets no rewards for making a bad throw.

WMB

[wadeintothem]

Agree with WMB - A od batter getting beaned by a ball doesnt de facto mean they interferred with the throw, it could also mean it was a poor throw (or worst case "accidently-on-purpose").

Blocked ball obviously does not apply, and is not the intent of blocked ball - and that leaves live ball play on unless some one can show specifically otherwise.

POE 32D describes a situation where the od batter interfered with a throw... not IMO, every situation where they could conceivably, even through no fault of their own, come in contact with the ball.

Interesting discussion.

[greymule]

I am in 100% sympathy with you guys, except that whether it's in the book or not, this was covered in OKC and we're wrong.

Throw hits on-deck batter, it's a blocked ball. If runners are advancing, they could possibly be put out. (Even if no fielder is within 50 feet of the ball, Abel could have narcolepsy and fall asleep two steps from home plate.) Therefore, the runner closest to home is out.

This is not a TWP. At some point, we've probably all seen a wild throw hit the on-deck batter.

[Dakota]

Originally posted by greymule
...was covered in OKC and we're wrong.

Throw hits on-deck batter, it's a blocked ball. If runners are advancing, they could possibly be put out. ... Therefore, the runner closest to home is out.

If that, indeed, is the sense of the official ASA interp, then this ranks right up there with the NFHS dodgeball interp, IMO.

WMB - you got it - Dodgeball II.

Same points against it, too - where it the play (out) that was interferred with?

If, say, F2 is dashing to scoop up the ball, F1 is coming home to cover, and the errant (remember a throw that hits an ODB in the ODC is almost certainly errant) throw is knocked away by an ODB not getting out of the way, then I can see where the play / out was.

But just runners advancing? I am having a hard time with that.

[wadeintothem]

so the only player or person that is allowed on the field that could have a blocked ball called on them is the od batter?

Doesnt make any sense - but I wasnt there in OKC ...

[wadeintothem]

Originally posted by greymule
I am in 100% sympathy with you guys, except that whether it's in the book or not, this was covered in OKC and we're wrong.

Throw hits on-deck batter, it's a blocked ball. If runners are advancing, they could possibly be put out. (Even if no fielder is within 50 feet of the ball, Abel could have narcolepsy and fall asleep two steps from home plate.) Therefore, the runner closest to home is out.

This is not a TWP. At some point, we've probably all seen a wild throw hit the on-deck batter.

Also - I dont have my 2005 book ... but if it aint in the book I aint enforcing it. I cant tell some irate coach "well some guy on officialforum.com said that in OKC they said in a meeting...."

[mcrowder]

From Greymule: "This is not a TWP. At some point, we've probably all seen a wild throw hit the on-deck batter."

I agree ... and once coaches get wind of this "ruling", all the throws hitting the on-deck batter will not be "wild" either.

[Dakota]

I can't escape the feeling we are vastly overreacting to this.

Misreading or misunderstanding the official interp. Taking it to extremes not intended. etc.

I hope so.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by Dakota
I can't escape the feeling we are vastly overreacting to this.

Misreading or misunderstanding the official interp. Taking it to extremes not intended. etc.

I hope so.

Tom,

Thank you, someone who actually has their eyes wide open.

Y'all taken things a bit too seriously, aren't you? I stated that I was taught that if runners are advancing there is always a chance to make an out. I didn't say anything about that being the rule, did I?

I, also, mentioned "judgment", didn't I? Obviously, you don't rule people out when there is no chance for a play, let alone an out.

Here it is, plain and simple. On-Deck batters are "permitted" to be in the field of play. They are not considered a person involved in the game. Unlike base coaches in the box, they have no area of protection and hold sole responsibility for avoiding any interference with the game which may be caused by themselves and/or any equipment which the bring onto the field of play with them. That includes being aware of their relative position to the ball and ensuing play.

If the ODB leaves the circle as permitted in 7.1.D.2 and is in a proper position to perform the task of directing a runner and is accidentally hit with a deflected or uncaught ball beyond the play, that would not be interference unless there was some intention to interfere with further play noted.

In the past I made a statement, and I have no problem repeating it. If anyone has a problem making calls without the specific scenario being covered in a rule book, s/he should find an avocation other than sports official. I am not aware of any sport in which there is not some judgment by the official involved. For that matter, if it wasn't for the judgment parts of our position, there would be little need for us.

Thanks,

[wadeintothem]

The laced hyperbole aside, no one was disputing interfernce, judgement, etc - the dispute centers on suddenly applying "blocked ball" to ODB Interference.

Furthermore, since this isssue was the topic of discussion in OKC; obviously it is not black and white ... and since THIS is a discussion board - it is entirely appropriate to discuss it; especially when it doesnt make a lick of sense to add some type of multiple layers of redundancy to ODB Interference, not to mention, it isnt in the rule book as "ODB Blocked ball" - its interference.

Relax punchy, Its not a slight on you to discuss something even though you have opined... its a worthwhile discussion.





[Edited by wadeintothem on Feb 19th, 2005 at 10:44 PM]

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by wadeintothem
The laced hyperbole aside, no one was disputing interfernce, judgement, etc - the dispute centers on suddenly applying "blocked ball" to ODB Interference.

There is nothing "sudden" about it. It has always been, by definition, a blocked ball.

Furthermore, since this isssue was the topic of discussion in OKC; obviously it is not black and white

The Biennial UIC Clinic is NOT the same type of clinic you attend. It is there to pass down interpretations and teach the UICs how to present the rules and interpretations. Most of the discussions are raised when the clinician asks for specific answers or an individual has a question on a subject they do not understand. More often than not, that question is not from a UIC, but a guest umpire. There was no discussion from the audience on the ODB interference in the break-out session I attended.[quote]


... and since THIS is a discussion board - it is entirely appropriate to discuss it; especially when it doesnt make a lick of sense to add some type of multiple layers of redundancy to ODB Interference, not to mention, it isnt in the rule book as "ODB Blocked ball" - its interference.

Relax punchy, Its not a slight on you to discuss something even though you have opined... its a worthwhile discussion.

Punch this! Discussion is one thing. Substituting...nevermind, not worth the keystrokes.







[Edited by wadeintothem on Feb 19th, 2005 at 10:44 PM] [/B]

[greymule]

quote:Originally posted by rwest
Runners on 1st and 2nd. Batter hits a base hit to shallow right. The right fielder overthrows 1B. If the ball hits the ondeck batter who is

a) in the ondeck circle
or
b) out of the ondeck circle

Is this a blocked ball in b but not a? If so what bases are awarded, if any?

Thanks!
Randall


The on-deck batter has no haven. This would be a blocked ball if the contact actually prevented the defense from making an out. By rule, if all runners are just standing there and making no attempt to advance, you kill the ball and leave the runners on the bases where they are at that time.

However, if any of the runners are attempting to advance, you kill the ball and rule the runner closest to home at the time of the interference out.

Much of the confusion arose right here. The explanation appears to call for an out if runners are advancing when the ball hits the ODB. However, we then learn that it is only when the defense is prevented from making an out (not likely in the play described) that we make a call, and then not on the runner closest to home, but instead, says the rule, on the runner being played upon. We also learn later that balls that hit the ODB are not necessarily to be considered blocked. For example, F3's wild throw home that hits the ODB is not a blocked ball, but is apparently in play the same as if it accidentally hit the 3B coach. A runner two steps from home can continue to touch the plate; other runners can continue advancing.

The definition of blocked ball specifically exempts a coach, but it does not exempt the ODB, unless we interpet the ODB to be someone "engaged in the game" (I take that to mean "entitled to be on the field," like a retired runner.)

Apparently, unless the ODB prevents a legitimate play by interfering, we treat him the same way we would treat a base coach or retired runner. And a wild thow that hits the ODB would be extremely unlikely to qualify as a legitimate play that could produce an out.

Now let's see whether I have this right:

Abel on 2B, no out. Baker gets a hit to left center. F8 throws home to get Abel. With Baker on his way to 2B, the ball bounces off F2 and hits Charles, the on-deck batter, who has moved in position to signal Abel to slide. The ball rolls away and Abel makes it to 3B.

The ODB was where he was supposed to be, the defense had no chance to make an out, so the ball is not blocked. It's still live. No call.

[wadeintothem]

The definition of blocked ball specifically exempts a coach, but it does not exempt the ODB, unless we interpet the ODB to be someone "engaged in the game" (I take that to mean "entitled to be on the field," like a retired runner.)

I also took that as the basic defination... and did not think blocked ball would apply. Apparently that was incorrect.

I believe with the interpretation thats been given on this thread, there is no case where a ball would hit ODB and would remain live - it is a dead ball... then you would determine int or not.

I have a fed clinic tonight and I'm going to bring it up and get their interpretation/opinion. The UIC is also ASA.

[BHBlue]

Originally posted by IRISHMAFIA

However, if any of the runners are attempting to advance, you kill the ball and rule the runner closest to home at the time of the interference out.

Unless it has changed for 2005, I was under the impression that in ASA, the runner being played on is out, not the runner closest to home as in NCAA.

Am I mistaken?