Dropped 3rd Strike

[ronald]

Thank you for the correction. I see the distinction.

ASA

Now, could you provide interpretation and guidance on 8-8F (does touch mean same as deflected, ricochet etc) and RS 33-A-b)2nd sentence (is it missing the word intentional?). My understanding from training is no out if runner hit by deflected ball, could not avoid it and another player had opportunity to make a play.

What I am looking for is what are the different possibilities and rulings for a deflected ball?

Bretman had stated that "If a runner is hit by a batted ball randomly deflected by one fielder and another fielder has opportunity to make a play, the runner is called out." That is why I cited "To Interfere with a deflected
batted ball it must be Intentional 8-7J-4". Has ASA put the wrong rule here? 8-8F indicates that if the runner could not avoid the ball, he/she is not out

Thanks, Ron

[ronald]

checked my notes and this is what I wrote:

Deflected ball
could not avoid ball/fielder=no interference
fielder there and could avoid=interference
intentional if could and does not (that is talking about how to interpret the word intentional)

Do you guys agree with those instructions?

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by ronald

checked my notes and this is what I wrote:

Deflected ball
could not avoid ball/fielder=no interference
fielder there and could avoid=interference
intentional if could and does not (that is talking about how to interpret the word intentional)

Do you guys agree with those instructions?

I'd go for that.. remember the rule says that the defender needs to have been able to make an out (not just a play and not just fielding the ball).. IMO (and I'm sure some will scream at this, so just take it as my opinion) Call this one tight . They muffed it initially and lose benefit of the doubt.

[ronald]

Wadeintothem,

What rule are you referring to with the words ". . . remember the rule says that the defender needs to have been able to make an out (not just a play. . ."

Ron

[BretMan]

Originally Posted by ronald

Bretman had stated that "If a runner is hit by a batted ball randomly deflected by one fielder and another fielder has opportunity to make a play, the runner is called out."

Ron,

Bretman now apologizes because when he re-read what he wrote, he immediately realized that he had goofed up!

I must have been typing faster than I was thinking. I mixed together two different rules and it came out totally wrong. The two rules strung together were actually 8-7-J(4) and 8-8-F (the same two rules you're quoting in your posts, which while kind of similar, address two completely different things).

Rule 8-7-J(4) tells us (as Mike already poined out) that on a batted ball deflected by a fielder, the runner is out if he interfers with any fielder that still has a play on the ball.

8-8-F says that a runner is not out if a batted ball deflects off a fielder and the ball accidentally strikes him.

The first rule is the one I meant to quote, using it as an example of a runner maybe catching an unlucky break on a ball that takes an unexpected bounce.

One rule involves interfering with a fielder, the other with the ball itself. In one the runner's intent is irrelevant, in the other we get to judge intent.

But when you mish-mash the two rules together like I did you wind up with something that is just plain wrong. Sorry about that!

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by ronald

Wadeintothem,

What rule are you referring to with the words ". . . remember the rule says that the defender needs to have been able to make an out (not just a play. . ."

Ron

8-7-J-4

I was addressing your deflected batted ball ball post.

And unlike bretmans contention in his post above.. it doesnt say "play" (which is an attempt at an out), it says "out".

[BretMan]

Wade, while my statement of the rule was not a verbatim, word-by-word quote of the rule, aren't we both really saying the same thing?

Don't you need to have "the opportunity to make an out" in order to make "an attempt to retire an offensive player"?

I thought that the rule definition added last year of what constitutes "a play" was supposed to clear that up. "Make a play" now equals "try to make an out", whereas that was unclear prior to 2007.

[ronald]

Thanks guys. If I had a printer, I would print the info. I do not want to take notes but do not have much of a choice.

Wadeintothem or others,

Could you discuss how you view the ideas of an "opportunity to make an out" versus an "attempt by a defensive player to retire an offensive player" (play).

Is ASA using different words to mean the same thing?

What is ASA getting at when they say attempt to retire? Does the organization want a narrow reading of attempt or one of in theory which gives a much broader reading.

I remember you guys discussing this terminology before, so if there is a link you can direct me to, go ahead.

[ronald]

At one time, I thought I saw that ASA had thousands of dollars on its balance sheets.

I think it is time someone got paid to write ASA thinking and interpretations to the rules. I think that would be better than the top down approach.

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by ronald

Thanks guys. If I had a printer, I would print the info. I do not want to take notes but do not have much of a choice.

Wadeintothem or others,

Could you discuss how you view the ideas of an "opportunity to make an out" versus an "attempt by a defensive player to retire an offensive player" (play).

Is ASA using different words to mean the same thing?

What is ASA getting at when they say attempt to retire? Does the organization want a narrow reading of attempt or one of in theory which gives a much broader reading.

I remember you guys discussing this terminology before, so if there is a link you can direct me to, go ahead.

I interpret it to be the spirit of the rule.. a tightening down on the protection afforded a defensive player on a deflected ball as opposed to an initial play.

R1@2b grounder to F6
F6 muffs it initially, but is still within a reach of the ball and is reaching out to grab the ball and throw to retire the BR when R1 runs by, contacting the fielders arm.

DB Out.


This IMO, is example of Obstruction on a deflected ball and not INT... and is the difference in the wording.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NGIZ_xhePo

Since I think its pretty obvious that without the contact, there was no possibility of an out. I think ASA's wording makes the call very clear whereas BB umpires debate this play a lot.

[BretMan]

On that YouTube video, if you go back a few pages in the comment section, you'll see where I weighed in with the NCAA interpretation and the MLB interpretation from the MLB Umpire Manual.

I would have obstruction on that play in any baseball or softball rule set. The runner was called out on the play in the video and the call was officially protested. The protest was upheld, the runner was ruled safe due to obstruction, and the game resumed from that point a week later.

Baseball-wise, there has now been a wrench thrown into that line of thinking. I am not an NCAA baseball umpire, and obviously not a MLB umpire (I do high school ball),so I don't have first hand training on this.

But, I have been told that the NCAA has modified their rule, based on this very play. They now would interpret this as interference, essentially giving the fielder a "second chance" and restoring his protection if he is about to pick up his own deflected ball, even after having to chase after it.

For MLB, despite the rulings to the contrary, several pro umpires have stated the same thing (both Hunter Wendelstedt and Rob Drake, on their respective internet chat boards)- that the fielder is "protected again" if he catches up to his deflected ball, even beyond a "step and reach", and is about to field it again.

So, speaking baseball, who knows. I'll leave that to the college and pro guys, keep calling it the same way in high school until told differently and, in softball, call obstruction every time!