Dropped third strike interference?

[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....

[reccer]

Dakota said:

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

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

Tom, I apologize, I did not read your reply correctly. The discussion got off on a slight tangent to my original query. Cecilone responded that a D3K that is kicked by the batter results in an out whether the interference is intentional or not. So, I am taking that to the bank unless someone else objects.

What happens if on the D3K that is unintentionally kicked by the batter while a runner is trying to advance from third to home. Is it an immediate deadball and the runners are returned?

And while I have you, if the kick is intentional, any difference to which batter or runner is out?

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by reccer

Dakota said:

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

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

Tom, I apologize, I did not read your reply correctly. The discussion got off on a slight tangent to my original query. Cecilone responded that a D3K that is kicked by the batter results in an out whether the interference is intentional or not. So, I am taking that to the bank unless someone else objects.

What happens if on the D3K that is unintentionally kicked by the batter while a runner is trying to advance from third to home. Is it an immediate deadball and the runners are returned?

And while I have you, if the kick is intentional, any difference to which batter or runner is out?

Reccer, reread the posted approved ruling and rule change explanation above. Then, stop trying to think of instances to protect the offense; no matter how many times you hear it in this board, there is absolutely ZERO RULES BASIS to allow the offense to interfere (intentionally or unintentionally) because the defense made an error first.

If the batter in the batter's box actively hinders the catcher from making a play, it is interference (7-6-Q). Actively means does something besides standing in the batter's box; and kicking the ball clearly applies. It doesn't matter how the ball got there, how many people missed it, mishandled it. If the batter-runner leaving the batter's box interferes with the ball (fair batted ball 8-2-F(4), or dropped third strike (8-2-F(6), it is interference; and the dropped third strike is the clearest instance of the defense failing to make a play first, but the offense still may not interfere.

There is a baseball mindset that you don't penalize the offense if the situation was created by the defense failing to make a play. There is no softball rules basis to ignore a rule that applies if the defense first didn't make a possible play. If the rule applies, you should apply it; the only time you don't is if ANOTHER RULE also applies and creates an exception. These plays you are questioning are not exceptions; the basic rules apply.

[WestMichBlue]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

There is a baseball mindset that you don't penalize the offense if the situation was created by the defense failing to make a play. There is no softball rules basis to ignore a rule that applies if the defense first didn't make a possible play.

Good point for a general rule, and specifically for the OP here. However . . . .

For years umpires have used the common sense application of a "step and a reach" to determine whether or not to protect a defender from interference when they bobbled the first attempt to field a batted ball. When a pitcher boots a ground ball towards the 1B line, chases it and collides with the B-R, obstruction (penality on the defense) is going to be your call. A couple years ago NFHS hard coded that into their rulebook.

Also, for many years ASA and NCAA have not protected a second fielder from interference after the initial defender deflected a batted ball. NFHS also has that rule now.

So there are situations when a defender fails to execute a play, they are not protected from subsequent interference by an offensive player.

WMB

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by WestMichBlue

For years umpires have used the common sense application of a "step and a reach" to determine whether or not to protect a defender from interference when they bobbled the first attempt to field a batted ball. When a pitcher boots a ground ball towards the 1B line, chases it and collides with the B-R, obstruction (penality on the defense) is going to be your call. A couple years ago NFHS hard coded that into their rulebook.

Also, for many years ASA and NCAA have not protected a second fielder from interference after the initial defender deflected a batted ball. NFHS also has that rule now.

So there are situations when a defender fails to execute a play, they are not protected from subsequent interference by an offensive player.

WMB

And since this thread seems to be moving somewhat off the path , let me add that in ASA, this (INT on a deflected ball) is one of the few rules remaining where the INT needs to or appear to be intentional. And before someone jumps in here with the "how am I supposed to read the runner's mind" BS, it is the umpire's job to make a judgment and in my past, I've not had a problem determining intent.