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.

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.

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 Dakota’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 it’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

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.

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 <i>could</i> 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.

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.

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 ...

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...."

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.

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,

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]

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

Quote:

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.

<b> 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.</b>

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.

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.

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?

At my clinic tonight with many Fed/ASA UIC's, there was a resounding - "it's not necessarily a blocked ball" .. but it wasnt gotten into too much.

*sigh*

~Confused in the Peoples Republic of Kalleeeeforia~

<b>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?</b>

My 2005 book says the runner being played on is out, not the runner closest to home.

However, we don't know how literally 8-5-G-3 is supposed to be taken. It begins, "If the ball becomes blocked due to offensive equipment not in the game. . . ." Does ASA intend to differentiate between a blocked ball that hits offensive equipment and a blocked ball that is "touched, stopped, or handled by a person not engaged in the game"? And "touched, stopped, or handled" are words that might imply intent or deliberate action. Notice that the definition doesn't include "or <i>hits.</i>" And is the ODB engaged in the game or not?

If they do not intend to differentiate, then why add "due to offensive equipment not in the game," when simply "if the ball becomes blocked" would do?

If the ODB is not simply hit with the ball but in fact deliberately interferes with it, do we then call out the runner closest to home? That's what we would call if a retired runner interfered. But that's interference, not a blocked ball.

At this point, I cannot believe that a throw that hits the ODB is automatically a blocked ball.

I believe you are. ASA made this move a few years ago. The person which interferes is ruled out, not the runner. If the person whom interferes with the play is not an "active" participant (i.e. a runner/batter/BR which has already been retired), they cannot be ruled out.

Therefore, the runner closest to the plate is ruled out.

ASA Rule 7.1.E addresses which runner is ruled out when the ODB interferes with a play.

IOW, no one had an alternative which they could substantiate with a rule.

Not in the case of the ODB.

Quote:

However, we don't know how literally 8-5-G-3 is supposed to be taken. It begins, "If the ball becomes blocked due to offensive equipment not in the game. . . ." Does ASA intend to differentiate between a blocked ball that hits offensive equipment and a blocked ball that is "touched, stopped, or handled by a person not engaged in the game"? And "touched, stopped, or handled" are words that might imply intent or deliberate action. Notice that the definition doesn't include "or <i>hits.</i>" And is the ODB engaged in the game or not? If they do not intend to differentiate, then why add "due to offensive equipment not in the game," when simply "if the ball becomes blocked" would do? If the ODB is not simply hit with the ball but in fact deliberately interferes with it, do we then call out the runner closest to home? That's what we would call if a retired runner interfered. But that's interference, not a blocked ball. At this point, I cannot believe that a throw that hits the ODB is automatically a blocked ball.

Actually, I wouldn't totally disagree with your statement, but that isn't the rule.

Read definition of a Blocked Ball, then Interference and then rule 7.1.E.

There is absolutely no mention of intent in any of the three sections noted above, therefore, assumptions aside, a ball hitting the ODB is a blocked ball and POSSIBLY interference.

If an umpire isn't willing to judge when it is or is not interference, how could you expect THEM to be able to determine if there was intent or not on behalf of the ODB?

I'm aware that there's no mention of intent. I was just wondering whether we could infer intent from the way they worded the rule. Why not say simply "<i>contacts</i> a player not engaged in the game"?

So we are to treat a throw that hits the ODB as blocked in all cases, the same as if it hit offensive equipment lying in front of the dugout. It is a dead ball immediately. If it prevents an out (not likely, but possible), we now treat it as interference and call the runner closest to home out. If it does not prevent an out, we still send runners back to their last bases touched—even a runner two steps from home—the same as we would if the ball hit a bunch of bats lined up on the fence outside the dugout.

I think that adding any discussion of INT muddies the water of this discussion. 7.1.E. is INT, not a blocked ball, and there is no argument in that regard IMO and its clear. The definition of INT is equally clear with the words "Offensive.. team member".

Blocked ball - I think it centers on whether an ODB is "engaged in the game."

Either they are "engaged" or they arent. If they are considered engaged in the game, blocked ball can NEVER apply. If they are not, it ALWAYS applies... right?

I've probably thought too much into this... but you must admit Mike it's not 100% clear... and as I think about it I, I go back and forth in my mind as to the status of an ODB - engaged or not.
Fed uses "non participating team personnel" - for a dead ball.

Your probably correct in your interpretation... an ODB may be allowed on the field but they arent really "engaged" or "participating" until they are at bat... what are they allowed to do? Nothing.. I've even had coaches whine they are "clocking" their pitcher.

That said... base coaches are exempted in ASA (allowed on the field), as are authorized (allowed on field somewhere) media personnel... the ball remains live..

ugh.

Thats about how I start confusing this in my mind -----

[Edited by wadeintothem on Feb 22nd, 2005 at 02:19 PM]

Think of them in terms of a bat. A bat used by the BR is a piece of equipment used in the game. A bat used by the ODB to warm-up is not.

Under NORMAL circumstances, a bat used by the BR does not interfere with the game or cause a blocked ball. A bat used by the ODB is not part of the game and can cause interference and the ball is always considered blocked, by rule, if that bat is touched by a live ball.

The ODB is permitted, by rule, to leave the OD circle only to avoid interfering with a play, or to direct a runner approaching the plate. However, they are still required to avoid interfering with the play.

Quote:

That said... base coaches are exempted in ASA (allowed on the field), as are authorized (allowed on field somewhere) media personnel... the ball remains live..

Partially true. The coach is exempt only when accidentally hit by a thrown ball, a foul batted ball or a batted ball over foul territory which no fielder had the opportunity to catch.

The coach is still required to vacate their "haven" to avoid interfering with a defender making a play. They are not allowed to leave the box between pitches to talk to the batter.

Media is allowed on the field as long as they are in complete control of all their equipment and there is no designated media area. Most of the time, they are the same as we are, just part of the field, dirt!

Last point first - that is not correct; An ODB is allowed to coach runners home from third (7-1-D-2).

If the ODB is coaching runners home from third, the ODB is engaged in the game.

Otherwise, I agree with your points I have quoted, even though you use THEY! ;)

Last point first - that is not correct; An ODB is allowed to coach runners home from third (7-1-D-2).

If the ODB is coaching runners home from third, the ODB is engaged in the game.

Otherwise, I agree with your points I have quoted, even though you use THEY!

-------------------------------

Yep, they are allowed to do that ...

So if a thrown ball hits an ODB inadvertantly while they are engaged in doing 71d2....

Cool, more mud for the water...

[QUOTE]Originally posted by IRISHMAFIA

ASA Rule 7.1.E addresses which runner is ruled out when the ODB interferes with a play.


Sorry, Mike, but my post had to do with what your first post called a blocked ball, not what you now calling INT. It is encouraging to see that you, like many of us, are not above a little spin to avoid the perception of fallibility. ;)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by BHBlue

Quote:

Originally posted by IRISHMAFIA ASA Rule 7.1.E addresses which runner is ruled out when the ODB interferes with a play.

Quote:

Sorry, Mike, but my post had to do with what your first post called a blocked ball, not what you now calling INT. It is encouraging to see that you, like many of us, are not above a little spin to avoid the perception of fallibility. ;)

Below is the only post in this thread which I can find from you. So as for the post above, you are going to have to tell me about what the hell you are talking.

You specifically mentioned ruling a player out and that occurs due to interference, not a blocked ball.


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?
__________________
Wyman

Who is doing the spinning here?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by IRISHMAFIA

Who is doing the spinning here?



No spinning, just wrong. The out which I was referring to is for offensive equipment, and not ODB. Serves me right for not having the book in front of me when I post.

My apologies.