Situation #2
 

From ASA's Rule Clarifications for March:

In this situation, I'm proposing that Rule 7 should apply here, not Rule 8. To go a step forward, I could apply 2 separate rules and have two distinctly separate rulings!

First: The way the situation is written, the NUS has stated that Rule 8 is the rule reference, which means they assume B4 has now become a BR. However, the situation never states that B4 became a BR; and in fact, takes it one step beyond by stating that R2 attempted to steal 2B. If B4 had become a BR, then R2 would be advancing, not stealing. Therefore I propose that B4 never became a BR. B4 is still a batter, and Rule 8.2.F.3 does not apply.

Second: If B4 is a batter (and not a BR), then Rule 7 applies. Specifically, there are 2 rules an umpire could apply here: 7.6.R or 7.6.S. Rule 7.6.R allows for the umpire to judge intent. Rule 7.6.S doesn't. So on this play, I could have a dead ball-out, or I could have a safe. It all depends on which rule I want to apply, and how it's applied.

Thoughts? Am I missing something here? :confused:

Methinks that this seeming contradiction or omission is the exact reason this play was included in the ASA Clarifications - that that ASA is quite clearly telling us what they want called here by including it.

I can't tell whether ASA cited the wrong rule or didn't quite get the situation right for the rule they wanted to cite, but either way, their intent (if you pardon the word) seems clear.

Two things were the critical components here:

1) The batter was out of the box, and
2) The catcher was prevented from catching the ball and applying a tag.

This is more than just the batter being out of the box and getting hit by an errant throw. The second point would seem to be the key... did the fact that the batter was hit by the thrown ball prevent the catcher from making the play?

7-6-S is an easier path to the call than 7-6-R, but the call would be the same.

ASA does need to re-work their situation for the 8-2-F-3 ruling, though.

(Rule references above are from 2006).

Assuming that B4 became a BR, I agree with their ruling. However, the wording of the scenario leads me to believe that B4 never became a BR, so rule 8 would not apply - rule 7 would.

I assume you are basing that on " B4 has a 0-1 count and on the next pitch R2 attempts to steal" and no CO, etc.

Correct. I'm basing it on the "steal attempt". If B4 became a BR by one of the methods listed in 8.1, the scenario with R2 would have been worded differently, like R2 "advances," not "steals" - or similar wording. "Steals" implies she never became a BR by any method listed in 8.1...

B4, with an 0-1 count, cannot possibly become a BR. The only way B4 could possibly earn the right to 1B would be a HBP and that is an immediate dead ball with no further play available.

...or as soon as B4 legally hits a fair ball...
in which case R2 wouldn't be "stealing" 2B - R2 would be "advancing" to 2B.

Ok, so I'm playing word semantics...

But what I'm getting at is that rule 8 doesn't apply because B4 isn't a BR. B4 is a batter. Rule 7 applies.

And if Rule 7 applies, then I get the option of using:
7.6.R: when intentionally interfering with a thrown ball, in or out of the batter's box.
or
7.6.S: When interfering with a play at home plate.

I guess what it boils down to is that if "intentionally" was removed from 7.6.Q and from 8.2.F.3, then shouldn't it be removed from 7.6.R as well?

I could rule that there was no intent, therefore 7.6.R doesn't apply and my call is safe - or I could rule that there was interference (intent or not, it was a play at home plate!), therefore 7.6.S applies and I have an out.

All this said, "rulebook right, ballfield wrong." In all practicality, I got me an out on B4, whether she's B4 or BR4. It's obvious to me that the NUS wants the "intent" of the rule (pardon the pun) to get B4 out on an interference call...

I asked this very question at our rules clinic and the answer was no, the rules committed intended to leave the word "intentionally" in 7.6.R. Therefore, intent is still required in some cases for interference. Now, we have just fewer instances were intent is required.

IMO, anytime two throws have been made, and there is now a play at the plate, if the batter (who has the option of any exit in all possible 360 degrees and at any distance, and plenty of time to react) interferes with the play, it was intentional. We can still judge the result, and determine intent.