Dropped third strike interference?

[reccer]

I dredged up this old thread for guidance on a play this past weekend.

Dropped 3rd strike, ball rolls between right hand batters feet while still in box. While the catcher is reaching for the ball, batter unintentionally kicks the ball. Ball did not travel far and the catcher was able to retrieve the ball and throw out the batter. I asked the young PU (who was being trained by the old BU) to visit with me about that play in between innings.

I asked the PU would he have called interference if the batter had accidently kicked the ball in such a way that the catcher who was reaching for the ball could not have made a play? PU did not even see the kick but BU explained that since the kick was unintentional, he's got no interference.

I then asked well what about a D3K that traveled a few feet up the first baseline and is in fair territory and is again unintentionally kicked by the batter while the catcher was going to make a play. Again, old BU says play on

Reviewing my 2008 ASA Rule book, I don't know if Mike got the change he was going to request. Here is the wording of Rule 8, Sec 2, F.6.

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

Batter runner is out when the batter-runner interfers with (fast pitch) a dropped third strike.

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

It appears this is an out even though the defense screwed this up. (On the other hand, the offense did just strike out.)

Is the old BU right?

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by reccer

I dredged up this old thread for guidance on a play this past weekend.

Dropped 3rd strike, ball rolls between right hand batters feet while still in box. While the catcher is reaching for the ball, batter unintentionally kicks the ball. Ball did not travel far and the catcher was able to retrieve the ball and throw out the batter. I asked the young PU (who was being trained by the old BU) to visit with me about that play in between innings.

I asked the PU would he have called interference if the batter had accidently kicked the ball in such a way that the catcher who was reaching for the ball could not have made a play? PU did not even see the kick but BU explained that since the kick was unintentional, he's got no interference.

I then asked well what about a D3K that traveled a few feet up the first baseline and is in fair territory and is again unintentionally kicked by the batter while the catcher was going to make a play. Again, old BU says play on

Reviewing my 2008 ASA Rule book, I don't know if Mike got the change he was going to request. Here is the wording of Rule 8, Sec 2, F.6.

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

Batter runner is out when the batter-runner interfers with (fast pitch) a dropped third strike.

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

It appears this is an out even though the defense screwed this up. (On the other hand, the offense did just strike out.)

Is the old BU right?

The rule says "Batter runner is out when the batter-runner interfers with (fast pitch) a dropped third strike. ", nothing about intent so has to be an out. The concept of not being a batted ball does not apply if the rule specifies an U3K, which cannot be batted.

What difference do you see between this and a batted ball which the BR does not see?

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

The rule says "Batter runner is out when the batter-runner interfers with (fast pitch) a dropped third strike. ", nothing about intent so has to be an out. The concept of not being a batted ball does not apply if the rule specifies an U3K, which cannot be batted.

What difference do you see between this and a batted ball which the BR does not see?

Well, for one thing, on a batted ball the defense did not just drop the ball...

But, whatever, I'm having a hard time visualizing a batted ball that the BR cannot see before kicking it.

[reccer]

But, whatever, I'm having a hard time visualizing a batted ball that the BR cannot see before kicking it.

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

Unpadded brick backstop at new fields in Seguin Tx. The ricochets were unreal

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by reccer

But, whatever, I'm having a hard time visualizing a batted ball that the BR cannot see before kicking it.

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

Unpadded brick backstop at new fields in Seguin Tx. The ricochets were unreal

That would be a foul ball, wouldn't it?

[reccer]

Not a foul ball, a rise ball that is swung at and missed and ricochets off of brick backstop hitting the batter-runner as they are running to first

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by reccer

Not a foul ball, a rise ball that is swung at and missed and ricochets off of brick backstop hitting the batter-runner as they are running to first

But, that's not a batted ball....

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by reccer

But, whatever, I'm having a hard time visualizing a batted ball that the BR cannot see before kicking it.

Possibly a drag bunt.

[Tru_in_Blu]

From the March 2007 Rule Clarifications and Plays on the ASA Website, there was a section on "Tips for Judging Interference".

The first paragraph reads:

"In an effort to help umpires become more uniform in judging interference throughout the country, the ASA has addressed several rules relating to interference that contained the word "intentional". Specifically, the work "intentional" has been removed from Rule 7, Section 7 Q; Rule 8, Section 2 F [3]; Rule 8, Section 7 3 [3]; and, Rule 8, Section 7 P. Umpires now need only to base their decision on whether interference occurred or did not occur, and not the intentions of the offensive player. Moreover, removing the word "intentional" from these sections aligns these rules with the definition of INTERFERENCE in Rule 1.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Tru_in_Blu

From the March 2007 Rule Clarifications and Plays on the ASA Website, there was a section on "Tips for Judging Interference".

The first paragraph reads:

"In an effort to help umpires become more uniform in judging interference throughout the country, the ASA has addressed several rules relating to interference that contained the word "intentional". Specifically, the work "intentional" has been removed from Rule 7, Section 7 Q; Rule 8, Section 2 F [3]; Rule 8, Section 7 3 [3]; and, Rule 8, Section 7 P. Umpires now need only to base their decision on whether interference occurred or did not occur, and not the intentions of the offensive player. Moreover, removing the word "intentional" from these sections aligns these rules with the definition of INTERFERENCE in Rule 1.

And this is the next paragraph:

SITUATION 1: With no outs and R1 on 2B, B2 swings at and misses the pitch. R1 breaks for 3B and while F2 is throwing to 3B in an attempt to retire R1, B2, while remaining in the batter’s box, backs up to readjust their footing and bumps into F2 causing an errant throw. RULING: B2 is guilty of interference. The ball is dead, B2 is out and R1 must return to 2B. (Rule 7, Section 6 Q)

Please note that the batter actually did something to interfere. If that batter just stood there, it is nothing. The argument for removing "intentional" from some of the rules was that the umpire had to judge the offensive player's actions as to whether it was interference or not. IOW, the player must do something that caused the INT.

[wadeintothem]

Correct ruling and a ruling I agree with.

I cant think of any reason I would want a clarification/change added to the rules that would make this BR safe at 1B. In fact, the exact opposite. This should be a RS addition to unintentional/but doing something - for an out.