The following happened in a HS game the other day. I will tell you what the umpires ruled and what I think they should have ruled after everyone has had the chance to chime in.

R1 on 1B. B2 hits a hot grounder to F5 who boots the ball, sending it in the direction of the open offensive dugout. (No wall or screening to protect the bench). Before the ball enters the dugout, the ball caroms off an offensive player not in the game and who is sitting at the edge of the dugout, then into the dugout. What do you rule?

I can't tell from your post if the offensive player caused the ball to roll into the dugout or not. Or if she was in or out of the dogout.
If she did then the runners stop at first and second.
If the ball would have entered the dugout anyway, apply book rule. R1 at 3rd, B2 at second.

I think Scott is looking for an INT discussion here. :)

Not sure if NFHS would be the same, but speaking ASA.

It could be INT if the offensive player's presence prevented the defense from making a play. If not INT, the ball would be a blocked ball which kills the play and the runners would return to the base last touched at the time the ball became dead.

I think I'm with Mike here. In almost any case like the one described, I don't see a play being interfered with. Forget what happens after the ball contacts the offensive player - it's dead already. Kill it and place runners, rounding down as one of my guys would say.

I agree, but sounds too simple without a discussion about intent. It would still be dead, runners going nowhere, but what about UC?

Intent to do what?

If the umpire determines the player deprived the defense from a possible out, then it's interference whether there is intent or not.

If there is no possible play, then there is no INT regardless of intent.

Remember, a possible play by the defense is still umpire judgment.

I don't believe there is anything that has been noted here that would indicate an USC ruling.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by IRISHMAFIA

Quote:

Intent to do what? If the umpire determines the player deprived the defense from a possible out, then it's interference whether there is intent or not. If there is no possible play, then there is no INT regardless of intent. Remember, a possible play by the defense is still umpire judgment. I don't believe there is anything that has been noted here that would indicate an USC ruling.

Just trying to anticipate where Scott is going with this.
If the contact with the player was intentionally defelecting into DBT whne there was a possible play, would that be UC?

I was thinking about NFHS rule 8-4-3i and if the ball actually would have made it into the dugout without contacting the O player. 2 bases from the time of the pitch p65-66 of the 2006 NFHS rule book. I can imagine a player not paying attention and getting hit as the ball enters the dugout.
I was going from that piont of view. IMO the umpires should have kept the players and coaches not involved in the game off the field. Preventative officiating.

IF there's no play that might have been made by the defense
AND IF the offensive person was in live ball territory - I've got a blocked ball. The book tells me what to do with that. If there was a defensive play to be made, I've got interference. And - unrelated to the question - if that offensive person is a player, in live ball territory, I probably have a helmet violation and some other stuff to do.

Okay, but there is still no way I see UC here.

Why 2 bases? Isn't this a case of the ball getting away from a defense player, not a throw?

Because a fair batted ball which enters dead ball territory or becomes blocked is a two-base award. Contact with a fielder is not relevant.

Of course, this does not apply to a fair batted ball which leaves the playing field, in flight, in fair terrority.

The player who was sitting at the edge of the dugout had her legs over/on the playing field. There was no defender around besides the one who deflected the ball when she booted the play.

The umpires at this game ruled interference, however, and called R1 out and placed B2 on 1B. I thought that this was an incorrect ruling at the time, as apparently most of you did as well. My thought, when questioned by one of the umpires working the game was the ball should have been dead immediately, with B2 placed at 1B and R1 at 2B.

Some umpires should tattoo this to the inside of their eyelids...

"If there is no play, there is no interference."

Interference is always with a play, not with the ball, and not with a player (excepting, of course, silly rule interpretations on running lane violations).

Right with you as usual, Dakota.

Right up until the last part... what did you mean by "(excepting, of course, silly rule interpretations on running lane violations)"? Interference on a RLV is still interference with a play. No play, no interference

[QUOTE]Originally posted by IRISHMAFIA

Quote:

I think Scott is looking for an INT discussion here. :)

That's exactly what I was looking for.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dakota

Quote:

"If there is no play, there is no interference."

That was the point I made to the umpire who asked the question of me after the game.

Oh, I'm just taking another opportunity to bash the NFHS - as WMB would accuse me of - but, not really BASH them, more like make fun of them. Besides, has this now been adopted by the ASA, too??? Seems like I remember some discussion about it late last year.

The "silly interpretation" is the NFHS (and maybe others') interpretation of the running lane violation to include when the batter-runner who is awarded a base on balls gets hit by a thrown ball when out of the lane, regardless of whether there is any real play possible at 1B.

Ah. Gotcha.

Same origional question but instead of offensive player, change to defensive player. “Before the ball enters the dugout, the ball caroms off an DEFENSIVE player not in the game and who is sitting at the edge of the dugout, then into the dugout. What do you rule?”

Dead ball. Runners awarded two bases from TOP.

Skaht - nice quote. Bringing out a little Steven Wright for all to enjoy. Nice.

One of my favorites: I used to work at a fire hydrant company, but I hated it because you couldn't park anywhere near the place.

That and his one long joke - the nympho joke.

Thanks. All of my quotes on here have been Steven Wright quotes. He is perhaps the funniest human in the stand-up biz...IMO.

I have a map of the world that is actual size.... a little square down in the ocean says one mile = one mile.

Scott -

Just wondering why the ruling isn't the same for both? Since the ball was inches from DBA.
Could you provide the NFHS rule you are basing your call on?

thanks

Why should the offense benefit from interfering with action? THEY prevented it from leaving the field of play. It didn't leave the field of play, even if you think/suspect/know it was going to.

Well, no, ASA did not change their interpretation of this play.

ASA simply removed the comment "without liability to be put out" when talking about a walk because in FP the BR could enter DBT, interfere with a play on another runner, etc. I just attended a clinic with the top two ASA guys and when this rule change was covered, they never mentioned a change in the existing interpretation.

That is what I was hoping Scott would say.
Keeping non participants off the field and totally in the dugout in the first place makes this problem go away.

Sorry. Just got back here after leaving my last post Friday. I don't ever read this board on the weekends.