This play actually happened in a game I umpired in 1983. It recently came up in a discussion, and I was asked to make this posting to see if other umpires agree with my ruling. Here's what happened:

Two strikes on the batter. The next pitch bounces in front of the plate. The batter swings and misses for strike three. The pitch eludes the catcher and hits the backstop. (At this diamond the backstop is only about 10 feet behind home plate.) The ball ricochets hard off the backstop and rolls along the first base line. Both the catcher and first baseman see the ball and move in to field it. The batter-runner has no idea where the ball is, but he starts to run to first base. The ball ends up between the batter runner's feet--who accidentally kicks the ball into the bench area along first base!

After due consideration I called the batter-runner out for interference because, even though it was totally unintentional, he took a play away from the defensive team.

Would anyone out there make a different call?

NO. ASA Rule 8 Sec 2 F.

I've got incidental contact. Since the ball was not batted, intent comes into play. The ball obviously found the batter from behind, and the kick was accidental (your words). If the ball went into DBT, I would award 2B.

I will submit a rule change this year to correct that situation.

Thanks for the feedback so far. Keep it coming!

One thing though: If I didn't call interference, the batter would only get first base--not second base-- because it was a pitch that was accidentally kicked out of play.

One other thing: The game took place in Canada so Softball Canada rules would apply.

True, the ball was not batted, but what it was was a dropped third strike. Glen cited the rule. Intent is not a factor. Speaking ASA, correct call. Seems wrong, but according to the rules, correct.

Mike, what correction will you be submitting? Adding intent?

That's what I'll try to get done. Cannot expect the player legally advancing to avoid something they most likely never saw coming.

Batter interference on dropped 3rd strike revisited
 

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?

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.

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?

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

Possibly a drag bunt.

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

And since this thread seems to be moving somewhat off the path :rolleyes: , 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.

There is a major difference between a batted ball and U3K.

B1 hits a ball that is slowly rolling along the 1B line in foul territory with a good possibility of going fair. B1 kicks ball while ball is in foul territory. There is no penalty on B1. It is a foul ball. Even if everyone in the park knew it was intentional.

The ball is completley "in play" on U3K regardless of fair or foul. So any hinderance of the ball or a play on the ball by B1 would be INT.