Dropped 3rd Strike
 

Had this suituation happen last night and I didn't have the answer. Nobody on base, batters swings and misses for strike 3, catcher misses ball which goes to backstop. Since backstop is cinder block and fairly close the ball bounces back quickly and hits batter in ankle. Batter runs to first and is safe.

What do we have? Do we have batter interference and, therefore, an out, which is what the defense claimed? Is the batter "hit by the pitch" and awarded first base? Is the play live and stands as a strike out, passed ball, batter-runner stays at first? (Which is what I did) The batter-runner did not intentionally interfer. The 2 coaches and I talked about it after the game and no one really had an idea of what the ruling should be. Help!!

Are you questioning whether bouncing off the backstop is different than off the ground, the catcher, the umpire, etc.
Or is the question ""Did the action of the BR impede or hinder the opportunity of the fielder to make the play on the ball?""

The question is did the BR impede

1. If a throw hits a runner the ball is still live.
2. If a throw bounces off a fence and hits a runner the ball is still live.
3. If a pitch (throw) muffed by the catcher bounces off the backstop and hits the BR why wouldn't it be still a live ball?

I tend to agree with you which is why I ruled as I did. It seems logical. Anyone else have an opinion?

See SRW posts in another thread on the same rule.
http://forum.officiating.com/showthread.php?t=42705


"NFHS 8-2-6

The batter-runner is out... when the batter-runner interfers with a dropped third strike.

Pretty cut and dry to me.

BTW, ASA has the same thing: 8-2-F(6)"

Not the same situation as the PO. In the OP there is no mention of F2 being hindered while trying to make a play on the ball.

Note that the rule prohibits the B/R from interfering with "a dropped third strike", which is the ball itself, not the catcher. Also note that "intent" doesn't appear as any part of the rule.

It is my understanding that for both FED and ASA softball, if the rebounding, uncaught third strike hits the batter that should always be ruled interference.

(And that is just my current "understanding", based on past discussions about this topic and without he benefit of really digging through the books as research for this post. If my understanding is wrong, the rest of this post will be fairly moot!)

The differences mentioned about "the other game", refer to the fact that the baseball rules for this do allow the umpire to take the B/R's "intent" into account and interference is not an automatic call.

While that does sound both fair and logical, and is a ruling I personally prefer, the unfortunate fact is that the softball world does interpret this differently.

The B/R is at the mercy of a possible random bounce. Sometimes, that's just the way the cookie crumbles (or, more fitting, just the way the ball bounces). While it may not seem fair, it is not the only such rule where a runner can be the victim of an unintentional, random bounce of the ball.

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.

If a batted ball takes a funny hop and strikes a B/R as she has just exited the batter's box, that is interference.

But there are other plays where the rules protect a runner from interference on these random cue-shoot bounces. On a batted ball, if the ball is deflected and accidentally contacts the runner, and no other fielder has a shot at the ball, that is nothing. Live ball, play on.

I would prefer that the third strike rule aligned with that last common interpretation. On that play, we are allowed to factor the runners intent into the call and make our own judgment. On an uncaught third strike, why not offer the B/R the same benefit of the doubt and allow us to apply our judgment in a similar manner?

But that is not the interpretation we have been handed. As "unfair" or "illogical" as it may seem, interference with the ball on a rebounding third strike is absolute, regardless of the B/R's intent, the catcher's inability to cleanly field the ball or our instincts of what the "right" call should be.

If memory serves, IrishMafia (Mike) submitted a rule change to ASA last year to allow us to judge the B/R's intent on this play and protect her from interference. His proposal was shot down.

I picked the wrong year to try and involve a rule change which introduced the word intent into an interference scenario.

However, there is still one thing to remember. The umpire still has the responsibility of declaring interference. The ball hitting the batter is not necessarily INT. There still must be a valid play to be made with which to interfere.

If the ball gets by and the catcher and pitcher turn and head toward the 3B side of the plate while the ball bounces back an hits the BR on the 1B side of the plate and there isn't another fielder in the vicinity to put the BR out, with whom did the BR interfere?

I agree with the above posts.. there must be interference by the BR.

In a case such as the OPs, I can even see where it is the direct opposite of interference.. it could help the defense.

Bretman,

ASA has states that "To Interfere with a deflected
batted ball it must be Intentional 8-7J-4"

Source: Rule differences ASA, NCAA, and Fed 2008

Ron

No, 8.7.J.4 deals with interfering with any defensive player who has the opportunity to make an out on a deflected batted ball. It refers to interfering with the player, not the ball.

Edited for FFS

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

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. :D

Mike, I guess you stepped in it this time! :D ;)