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 ;)

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

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.

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

Ron,

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

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!

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".

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!