Did I kick it ?

[Chess Ref]

ASA SP....
R1 on 2B. One hopper off the pitchers glove. Ball then hits the runner going to 3B. F6 was definetly in position to make a play on the ball till it hit the runner.

I come up with "dead ball" ,R1 is out. No one disagreed-not that that mattered- but was wondering if the pitcher touching changes anything from a normal ball hits runner deal.....

Rule 8-7-J-4 uses the intentionally in regards to a deflected batted ball....hence my not being totally sure of the deal....

[NCASAUmp]

Could the runner reasonably have avoided the ball? Did he even know where it was? If so, then you were correct.

However, 8-8-F:

When a runner is hit by a fair batted ball after it touches, or is touched by, any fielder, including the pitcher, and the runner could not avoid contact with the ball.

If that sounds more like what happened, then... Yeah, you kicked it one time.

[Chess Ref]

Originally Posted by NCASAUmp

Could the runner reasonably have avoided the ball? Did he even know where it was? If so, then you were correct.

However, 8-8-F:

Now having read 8-8-F I'm changing my call to I KICKED it.

Or NOT

[EsqUmp]

Simply put, the deflected ball rule applies. Unless the runner intentionally interfered, there is no interference. The ball is live and the runner is not out.

Knowing the rationale may help. On an initially batted ball, the runners are expected to watch (or at least see) the ball. So they can be called out without intent to interfere. Compare that to the deflected ball. The runner isn't required to watch the ball everlasting. Therefore, they can't be held accountable when the ball flies off in another direction, UNLESS, they saw it happen and intentionally interfered. That's because, even though they weren't required to look for the ball, they saw it anyway and "fairness" requires them to act appropriately. In this case, acting appropriately means to avoid interfering when you know you can do so.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by EsqUmp

Simply put, the deflected ball rule applies. Unless the runner intentionally interfered, there is no interference. The ball is live and the runner is not out.

Knowing the rationale may help. On an initially batted ball, the runners are expected to watch (or at least see) the ball. So they can be called out without intent to interfere. Compare that to the deflected ball. The runner isn't required to watch the ball everlasting. Therefore, they can't be held accountable when the ball flies off in another direction, UNLESS, they saw it happen and intentionally interfered. That's because, even though they weren't required to look for the ball, they saw it anyway and "fairness" requires them to act appropriately. In this case, acting appropriately means to avoid interfering when you know you can do so.

Now that you have started posting, how about some geography and credentials in your profile or at least in an introductory post. We know who is authoritative on here, but we don't know if you are for real.

[Skahtboi]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

Now that you have started posting, how about some geography and credentials in your profile or at least in an introductory post. We know who is authoritative on here, but we don't know if you are for real.

Is there an echo in here?

[Chess Ref]

But it made no reference to a deflected batted ball. So my thinking was that 8-7-J was a more appropriate rule.

Now I would go with I DIDN'T kick it.

I'm still new enough that I haven't seen everything and, believe it or not, I haven't seen this one yet after 4 years....

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Chess Ref

But it made no reference to a deflected batted ball. So my thinking was that 8-7-J was a more appropriate rule.

8.7.J does not apply. Keep reading, 8.7.K refers to being hit with a batted ball, but untouched.

As noted, 8.8.F is your deciding factor.

[SRW]

I believe this rule is slightly different in NFHS for this same play... can one of you NFHS guru's post the rule reference/language about the initial play and the deflection off of F1... or possibly an NFHS case play?

Gracias

[RKBUmp]

Originally Posted by SRW

I believe this rule is slightly different in NFHS for this same play... can one of you NFHS guru's post the rule reference/language about the initial play and the deflection off of F1... or possibly an NFHS case play?

Gracias

FED 2-47-3 Initial Play. A fielder is considered to be making an initial play on a fair batted ball when she:
a. Has a reasonable chance to gain control of a ground ball that no other fielder (except the piterh) has touched.
b. Has a reasonable chance to catch the ball in flight or catch the ball in flight after it touches another fielder.
c. Fails to gain control of the batted ball and is within a step and a reach (in any direction) of the spot of the initial contact.

But, FED 8-8-6 has essentially the same wording as ASA on the deflected ball rule.
The runner is not out when: is hit with a fair batted ball after it touches, or is touched by, any fielder, including the pitcher, and the runner could not avoid contact with the ball.

[Chess Ref]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

8.7.J does not apply. Keep reading, 8.7.K refers to being hit with a batted ball, but untouched.

As noted, 8.8.F is your deciding factor.

Lesson learned. I did KICK IT.....

So I just have a live ball in that SITCH and let them play on ?

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by Chess Ref

Lesson learned. I did KICK IT.....

So I just have a live ball in that SITCH and let them play on ?

If you felt that the runner could not have avoided the ball, then yes, play on. Otherwise, if you felt that he intentionally got in the way, then no, your call would have been correct.

From what I read, it sounds like 8-8-F applied.

[Tru_in_Blu]

ASA SP Runners on first and second, no outs. I am PU working w/ a partner.

Batter hit a long drive to LF. As I'm moving up the third base line, I have R1 in my vision. F7 makes an outstanding catch, back to home plate, like a wide receiver in football. I signaled and verbalized "out". R1, apparently thinking there was no chance for a catch has now rounded third. He basically gave up and did not try to return to second base.

As the ball is coming in from F7 to second base, I see R2 had just pulled up on the base. Partner is outside the baseline and now trailing R2. The infielder gets the ball and steps on second base. I called out to retire R1 on the live ball appeal. Not sure if partner also called out.

Now there is some confusion about R1 on second base. No one tagged him with the ball but F4 ran over to 1B and stepped on the base. I'm looking at my partner, and he's got nothing. We got together to discuss and I asked if he saw R1 tag up. He did not. We ended up calling R1 out for an obviously controversial triple play. Runner was not happy, claiming he did tag.

After the game, partner and I discussed. He said he had the tag at second. I asked, well, then who is supposed to take the tag at first? I think at that point he realized he messed up. We sometimes game plan that in a similar situation with the ball being hit to RF, that the BU will take the tag on the runner at second, while PU takes the tag at first given field of vision.

So a couple of things. I can't fault my partner for "getting inside" on this play. The ball off the bat to the catch was maybe 3-4 seconds. He still should have been checking the runner at first.

I usually go by the axiom of if you don't see an out, don't call an out. This case, we didn't see a tag up, and as a result, called an out.

How would others have handled this one?

Thanx.