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.

Thanks, Mike
 

What are the rule sections to support this ruling? Not that I doubt you, just liked to know where it is.

Re: Thanks, Mike
 

Don't have my book in front of me. Start with POE on Interference. There is a paragraph dedicated to the On Deck Batter.

POE 33 D. On-deck batters may be charged with interference
if they interfer with a throw and a possible tag on a runner,
or a fielder's opportunity to make an out on a fly ball.

<b>This would be a blocked ball if the contact actually prevented the defense from making an out.</b>

Isn't this a blocked ball in any case, but an out only if it prevented the defense from making an out?

<b>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.</b>

I see a difference between calling an out on a blocked ball because of "runners attempting to advance" and calling an out because the blocked ball prevented "a throw and possible tag on a runner." I can see an out in the latter case, but an out just because the runners were in motion? Rule 8-5-G-3 stipulates, "If the blocked ball prevented the defense from making an out, the runner being played on is called out." Where does it say something about calling an out because runners were attempting to advance?

Even with runners in motion, the ball hitting the on-deck batter doesn't necessarily prevent the defense from making an out.

If a wild throw hits the on-deck batter, why isn't this treated simply as a blocked ball, with the runners sent back to the last base touched at the time of the infraction?

Abel on 3B, no outs. Baker grounds to F3, who throws home to get Abel. The throw has Abel beaten easily, but it is wild, gets past F2, and hits the on-deck batter. Abel then crosses the plate and Baker goes to 2B. Or the ball bounces off the on-deck batter and goes into the dugout.

The runners were in motion. Is Abel out on this play because she was attempting to advance when the ball hit the on-deck batter (was blocked)? If Abel is not out, is she sent back to 3B?

Not to be argumentative, but.....
 

Rule 8-5-G-3 says nothing about an offensive player such as an on-deck batter. This is one of the complaints I have about the rule book. Some of the rulings are not explicit enough. They leave out important details. It seems that this rule should include not just offensive equipment but players as well.

If you take Rule 8-5-G with all its sections literally then a wild throw that hits the on-deck batter is a blocked ball and since he/she is not offensive equipment then you would award the runner(s) 2 bases.

Our discussion is about an errant throw leaving fair territory, going past the intended defender, and unintentionally hitting a player. (Is there a difference between an on-deck batter or retired runner or coach?)

I don't see that this act of getting hit meets the definition of interference (hindering fielder) unless there is a fielder somewhere over there waiting to pickup the errant throw.

If the player got too close to the foul lines and was between the throw and the defender (who have moved over to take the errant throw), you have a solid case for interference. But just standing by the dugout and getting nailed by an bad throw should not be interference, nor should the defense gain from their mistake.

A careful reading of the definition of a blocked ball shows no justification for calling this a blocked ball (thus killing the ball and awarding bases.)

You wouldn't kill the ball if the coach or a retired runner got beaned; what is the diff with an O-D batter. I believe the answer is simple: Live ball, play on.

WMB

<b>I believe the answer is simple: Live ball, play on.</b>

Until I read this thread, that's what I would have ruled. Seems logical to treat the on-deck batter as a coach or retired runner.

ASA Rules:

1-Blocked Ball

That kills the play.

7.1.E and POE 33.D determines whether interference should be ruled.

This, too, was covered in OKC.

Very interesting. So if a throw hits the on-deck batter, we treat it as if it had hit a bat or glove the offense left outside the dugout (unless a possible out was prevented).

Abel on 3B, no outs. Baker grounds to F3, who throws home to get Abel but instead beans the on-deck batter before Abel crosses the plate. The ball goes into the dugout. Hmm. No possible out prevented. Send Abel back to 3B. I guess we have to put Baker on 1B, even though she had not reached it when the ball hit the on-deck batter.

That depends. I've always been taught that if a runner is advancing, there is always a chance that the defense can put that runner out.

You know, that judgment thing.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by IRISHMAFIA

Quote:

[i]ASA Rules: POE 33.D determines whether interference should be ruled.

Hmmm.... Please help me out. My POE 33.D [ASA page 150] concern the LBR. I believe that it is 32.D [p.149 2004 book].

Mike is no doubt referencing the 2005 book. POE's are in alphabetical order, hence numbers are not always the same from year to year.

<b>That depends. I've always been taught that if a runner is advancing, there is always a chance that the defense can put that runner out.

You know, that judgment thing.</b>

If we are to treat a throw that hits the on-deck batter as a blocked ball, the same as if it hit offensive equipment lying outside the dugout, then even when in our judgment there was no chance whatsoever for the defense to get an out—in this case even if Abel's foot was coming down onto home plate when the ball hit the on-deck batter—we still have to send the runners back to the last base touched at the time the ball was blocked. Abel has to go back to 3B (and Baker? . . .).

If we take the position that whenever a runner is advancing, the defense has a chance to put that runner out—and therefore every blocked ball with runners advancing prevents a chance at an out—then we would have to call Abel out. If ASA intended that whenever runners are advancing, the defense has a chance for an out, they could have written simply, "If runners are advancing at the time of the blocked ball, the runner closest to home shall be called out, and all other runners shall return to the last base touched at the time of the infraction." I don't think that's what they meant.