ball caught by offensive player

[shipwreck]

Any ruleset. Base runner standing on third when ball is hit. Ball is hit right at the runner. In a reactionary move, he catches the ball while in contact with third. He then realizes what he did and kinda drops, tosses the ball down and heads home to score. What should happen? I believe I know, but the umpires called dead ball, brought him back to third and put the batter on first. On this play does the postion of the nearest defensive player have any bearing on the outcome? Please site what ruleset you are using and the rule infraction. Dave

[NCASAUmp]

Well...

ASA Rule 8-8-M: The runner is not out: When hit by a batted ball while in contact with a base, unless the runner intentionally interferes with the ball or a fielder making a play.

However, you said it was a "reactionary move," and what I'm hearing is that it was a hard shot that gave him little to no time to react. If that is truly the case, then I'd probably have nothing. Still, I'd be hard-pressed to not call it intentional if he had the capability of grabbing such a "hard shot" that was hit right at him.

This seems very HTBT, and I'm having troubles picturing it clearly enough to know what to rule.

Adding: If there's no chance of a fielder having a shot at the ball, then I would side a lot closer towards having nothing on this play. Same rule.

[Chess Ref]

That is one of those deals that sound like if you enforce the rule by it's technical aspects you are gonna hear about it.

having said that it does sound intentional-even if it was done for self-preservation....

I got an out and get to explain the rule to someone.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by shipwreck

Any ruleset. Base runner standing on third when ball is hit. Ball is hit right at the runner. In a reactionary move, he catches the ball while in contact with third. He then realizes what he did and kinda drops, tosses the ball down and heads home to score. What should happen? I believe I know, but the umpires called dead ball, brought him back to third and put the batter on first. On this play does the postion of the nearest defensive player have any bearing on the outcome? Please site what ruleset you are using and the rule infraction. Dave

DMR

If the runner had time to react and catch the ball, he had time to step aside and let the ball pass.

[shipwreck]

Just because he caught it doesn't mean he had time to get out of the way. If the runner had his hands in front of him and a rocket shot came his way, it could take less time to put his hands up and catch it than to move his body out of the way. I am sure he was just using a self preservation move, not trying to catch the ball. Our instincts tell us to use our hands to protect ourselves. Dave

[youngump]

Beyond catching the ball, you may still have him for intentionally doing something afterwards with the ball. I'm trying to visualize where the third baseman and catcher were that he was able to drop the ball and safely run home.
________
Bong

[DaveASA/FED]

Ok let me bark up this tree.....8.8.M says they intentionally interfere with the ball to get an out. Well do we have INT in this play? I can't judge that from the OP it is a HTBT, where was F5 and F6 playing? Would they have had a shot at the ball if R1 didn't catch it? I am assumming a little bit here (and we all know what that does ) BUT lets say that F5 and F6 are not in position to have gotten a glove on that hot shot, it would have sailed into left field and been eventually retrieved by that left fielder sometime....so by stopping the ball and dropping in by 3rd base instead of it rocketing into left I am thinking that the runner helped the defense not interfered with them. Again that is looking WAY too into the play as listed in the OP, but I would use that judgement in determining if there was INT or not. If a defensive player had a play on the ball then there is INT, but if not then no INT play on. Also it makes me wonder where the ball was in relationship to foul/fair. That could also be interesting...in this case if they are standing on 3rd (as OP said) then there is a chance that the ball would have been a foul ball if it continued its normal flight (not caught by R1) and could have easily landed foul after passing 3rd in the air. So there is another judgement to make, I also think if IY(your)J the ball would have been foul if untouched you have another senario where you could get INT easily.

JMO, what do you all think??

[TwoDot]

I had this exact play happen in a LL majors game. I am a BB referee that also does some LL games. What I did was to judge the line drive a foul, It would have landed foul, no one was in position to make a play on the ball, 3B was playing in front of the base anyway. I killed the ball, had a foul and made sure the runners did not advance.

I had thought that a runner could not be called for interference when legally on base? am I missing something? Thanks for the help!

[canump]

Originally Posted by TwoDot

I had this exact play happen in a LL majors game. I am a BB referee that also does some LL games. What I did was to judge the line drive a foul, It would have landed foul, no one was in position to make a play on the ball, 3B was playing in front of the base anyway. I killed the ball, had a foul and made sure the runners did not advance.

I had thought that a runner could not be called for interference when legally on base? am I missing something? Thanks for the help!

With F5 playing in front of the bag and as long as F6 was not over where she could have had a play on the ball, which I doubt was the case in the opening post then you would have a live ball situation as long as the contact was over fair terriotory, if it was over foul ground then all you would is a foul ball as you say in your judgement. And yes a runner can be called for interference if said contact was judged to be intentional and as long as a feilder had a chance for a play.
Since I don't do BB can someone clarify this ruling for me. All I do is fastball.

[LMan]

Originally Posted by TwoDot

I had this exact play happen in a LL majors game. I am a BB referee that also does some LL games. What I did was to judge the line drive a foul, It would have landed foul, no one was in position to make a play on the ball, 3B was playing in front of the base anyway. I killed the ball, had a foul and made sure the runners did not advance.

I had thought that a runner could not be called for interference when legally on base? am I missing something? Thanks for the help!

That's some inventive rules-creation you did there. In actuality, the baserunner, standing on a base, in fair territory, who is struck by a batted ball (unless its an infield fly, clearly not in this case) is out.

You got the 'killed the ball' part correct, anyhow.

If the ball struck the runner in foul ground, then its a foul ball. But that's dependent on where the contact occurred, not 'it would have landed foul.'

[Chess Ref]

Originally Posted by LMan

That's some inventive rules-creation you did there. In actuality, the baserunner, standing on a base, in fair territory, who is struck by a batted ball (unless its an infield fly, clearly not in this case) is out.

You got the 'killed the ball' part correct, anyhow.

If the ball struck the runner in foul ground, then its a foul ball. But that's dependent on where the contact occurred, not 'it would have landed foul.'

I'll look it up in a minute but I don't think thats correct either. In RS #44 it says the exact opposite of what you say.....Runner not out unless it was intentional act...

Assuming I'm reading your reply correctly LMAN

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by Chess Ref

I'll look it up in a minute but I don't think thats correct either. In RS #44 it says the exact opposite of what you say.....Runner not out unless it was intentional act...

Assuming I'm reading your reply correctly LMAN

And that's what a number of us are saying. If, in your judgment, the runner intentionally grabbed the ball, he's out. We're saying that if he had enough time to grab the ball, he had enough time to either get out of the way or, quite simply, not grab the ball.

[Chess Ref]

Originally Posted by NCASAUmp

And that's what a number of us are saying. If, in your judgment, the runner intentionally grabbed the ball, he's out. We're saying that if he had enough time to grab the ball, he had enough time to either get out of the way or, quite simply, not grab the ball.

I agree.. See my #3 post.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by shipwreck

Just because he caught it doesn't mean he had time to get out of the way. If the runner had his hands in front of him and a rocket shot came his way, it could take less time to put his hands up and catch it than to move his body out of the way. I am sure he was just using a self preservation move, not trying to catch the ball. Our instincts tell us to use our hands to protect ourselves. Dave

To start, if it was a "rocket", it would not have been caught by anyone without a glove that would have been able to simply drop the ball and play on. The hands are used in a defensive posture, especially if on 3B, IMO, would be more likely prepared to swat away something approaching, not catch it. Also, a runner on 3B should be in foul ground, so why would he catch a fair ball or be in position to catch a fair ball?

And if the runner, knocked the ball to the ground, I would have not problem with that. However, the player took possession of the ball.

Obviously, every part of this scenario is HTBT, but I still believe it is a DMR

[celebur]

Originally Posted by Chess Ref

I'll look it up in a minute but I don't think thats correct either. In RS #44 it says the exact opposite of what you say.....Runner not out unless it was intentional act...

Assuming I'm reading your reply correctly LMAN

I'm thinking LMan based his reply on baseball rules because Twodot mentioned that he's a "BB referee".