Dropped 3rd Strike

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by MichaelVA2000

I thought they took all the pooporutnity out of the ASA Rules Book.

Yep, the did.

During the great rule book purge of '06. Mike voted no, but still keeps a hold of his pooportutnity and wont let go.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by wadeintothem

Yep, the did.

During the great rule book purge of '06. Mike voted no, but still keeps a hold of his pooportutnity and wont let go.

Mike, I guess you stepped in it this time!

[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

[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]

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!