Stolen from eteamz

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by Steve M

This can't be a foul - the ball came off of the catcher's shin guard. I don't see how I can get just a dead ball on this.

What about "Ball hits bat still on batters shoulder"?

[Steve M]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

What about "Ball hits bat still on batters shoulder"?

Cecil,
The pitch went past the batter, hit the catcher, then hit the batter's bat - do you really think you call sell a foul ball on that?

"Pitch in dirt, hits F2 shin guard bounces straight up. Batter turns quickly looking down for ball. Ball hits bat still on batters shoulder and goes over the 3B screen and out of play."

That's not a foul ball.

[Dholloway1962]

Originally Posted by Steve M

That's not a foul ball.

No kidding......

Anyway, there is nothing to show the batter is "actively hindering" the catcher while in the box. IMO you have a dead ball based on a pitch, ball on batter and all runners awarded one base from where they were at time of pitch.

[kcg NC2Ablu]

[QUOTE=IRISHMAFIA]There is no intent necessary. There was a play in progress and the batter did something that hindered the catcher from making a play on a live ball.



I didnt discuss intent in my post and by that logic the batter swinging the bat and hitting the ball on a hit and run is hindering the catcher so we should call the batter out. If the play was as quick as it seems there is no way that you can call the batter out. There is no INT on this play for the simple fact that the batter cannot instantly jump out of the box as soon as it hits the mitt and if they did and the catcher throws to third as a snap throw and hits the batter now the batter has vacated the box what do you call? By rule this is INT bc the batter has left the area in which they can be provided that there is no imidiate play at home. If the ball is blocked by the catcher and rolls into the foot of the batter and now the catcher is hindered bc lets say there is a tie up there I understand but there is no way you can punish the batter for being where the batter is supposed to be and had no reason to have to vacate.

By the way my book isnt published yet .... but trust me ... it will be just so I can get you a page number

[IRISHMAFIA]

Points that are conveniently being omitted by folks who don't want the hear the INT side of the argument.

The batter moved the bat. Don't care if it is still on her shoulder. If a pitched ball hits the bat on the batter's shoulder and roles to the pitcher, are you going to ignore it? If the batter moved the bat to take a practice swing, would it be different? If so, how? The batter would still be interfering with the play.

The batter moved in a manner NOT associated with their natural stance, swing or reaction. That is 'actively hindering'.

The fact that it hit the catcher is irrelevant as to whether the ball is still live and the defense have the opportunity to make a play and/or get an out on an active runner.

It was an accident. So what? It's an accident when a batter ducks a high pitch that hits the bat, but the results are the same as if the contact was intentional. It's an accident when the pitcher drops the ball during delivery, but it doesn't mean we ignore it. It's an accident if F3 fakes a throw to 3B and the ball slips and goes out of play. Do we ignore that?

Instead of trying to justify ignoring a rule, try thinking about it from the defense's side. After all, there are two teams out there. Not all things are fair. The batter made a mistake. $hit happens.

[IRISHMAFIA]

I didnt discuss intent in my post

I didn't say you did, but now that you raised it, the manner in which you were presenting "actively hindering" sounded alot like you were looking for intent, IMO.

and by that logic the batter swinging the bat and hitting the ball on a hit and run is hindering the catcher so we should call the batter out.

That is simply absurd, but that shouldn't be a shock to anyone. Now you are just actively hindering any intelligent conversation.

If the play was as quick as it seems there is no way that you can call the batter out. There is no INT on this play for the simple fact that the batter cannot instantly jump out of the box as soon as it hits the mitt

This has nothing to do with the location of the batter, but the actions taken by the batter. Two different rules.

and if they did and the catcher throws to third as a snap throw and hits the batter now the batter has vacated the box what do you call?

INT, but as previously stated, that is another rule. Let's try staying on point.

If the ball is blocked by the catcher and rolls into the foot of the batter and now the catcher is hindered bc lets say there is a tie up there I understand but there is no way you can punish the batter for being where the batter is supposed to be and had no reason to have to vacate.

What, did you just wake up while typing? You know why that is NOT interference? Huh, do ya? BECAUSE IT ISN'T ACTIVELY HINDERING THE CATCHER!!! The batter is where she is supposed to be and doing what she is supposed to be doing.

By the way my book isnt published yet .... but trust me ... it will be just so I can get you a page number

Don't worry about it, I'm not going to need it. I don't care too much for fiction.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by Steve M

Cecil,
The pitch went past the batter, hit the catcher, then hit the batter's bat - do you really think you call sell a foul ball on that?

"Pitch in dirt, hits F2 shin guard bounces straight up. Batter turns quickly looking down for ball. Ball hits bat still on batters shoulder and goes over the 3B screen and out of play."

That's not a foul ball.

My point was just that you seemed to skip the ball hitting the bat by saying "the ball came off of the catcher's shin guard".
I guess I could live with it being a pitch that went to DBT and ignore who or what it hit, just need a rule citation to avoid the DC protest.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Points that are conveniently being omitted by folks who don't want the hear the INT side of the argument.

The batter moved the bat. Don't care if it is still on her shoulder. If a pitched ball hits the bat on the batter's shoulder and roles to the pitcher, are you going to ignore it? If the batter moved the bat to take a practice swing, would it be different? If so, how? The batter would still be interfering with the play.

The batter moved in a manner NOT associated with their natural stance, swing or reaction. That is 'actively hindering'.

The fact that it hit the catcher is irrelevant as to whether the ball is still live and the defense have the opportunity to make a play and/or get an out on an active runner.

It was an accident. So what? It's an accident when a batter ducks a high pitch that hits the bat, but the results are the same as if the contact was intentional. It's an accident when the pitcher drops the ball during delivery, but it doesn't mean we ignore it. It's an accident if F3 fakes a throw to 3B and the ball slips and goes out of play. Do we ignore that?

Instead of trying to justify ignoring a rule, try thinking about it from the defense's side. After all, there are two teams out there. Not all things are fair. The batter made a mistake. $hit happens.

If a pitched ball hits the bat of a batter trying to avoid being hit or whatever accident might cause bat-ball contact, is that a batted ball, fair or foul depending on where it goes?

[RKBUmp]

I have seen literally dozens of blocked balls in the dirt by the catcher richochet off the batter. It wasnt thier fault that the ball got knocked off of them, and what batter doesnt look to see where a ball in the dirt went? I would say it is a normal act by a batter to turn and look for a ball. As with everyone else, there is no specific rule in the book that can be cited on it, but I would have to lean toward it just being a dead ball out of play. It was the pitcher and catcher that ceated the situation, and it could have just as easily richocheted off the batters helmet out of play.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

If a pitched ball hits the bat of a batter trying to avoid being hit or whatever accident might cause bat-ball contact, is that a batted ball, fair or foul depending on where it goes?

Yes

[RKBUmp]

Once the ball has hit the catcher though, it is no longer a pitched ball. Batters get hit all the time by balls blocked off the catcher, and they arent awarded first base because they were hit by the pitch.

This is one of those calls that is going to be split 50/50. Probably has only happened the one time, will never happen again and would ultimately require the rule makers to address it in the rule book.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by RKBUmp

I have seen literally dozens of blocked balls in the dirt by the catcher richochet off the batter. It wasnt thier fault that the ball got knocked off of them, and what batter doesnt look to see where a ball in the dirt went? I would say it is a normal act by a batter to turn and look for a ball. As with everyone else, there is no specific rule in the book that can be cited on it, but I would have to lean toward it just being a dead ball out of play. It was the pitcher and catcher that ceated the situation, and it could have just as easily richocheted off the batters helmet out of play.

Did you even read the play? This has nothing to do with the ball hitting the batter. However, there is a precedent of a B/BR being ruled out when hit by a ball which ricocheted off the catcher in 8.2.F.6 on a D3K. Intent is not required.

And if you have been reading the thread, there is a specific rule which has already be quoted.

I don't like neither one of the rules, which is why I proposed changing 8.2.F.6 to include intent two years ago and fought against eliminating intent from the rules. However, as has been noted many times on this board, you work the rules of the association for which you are umpiring. You cannot pick and choose which ones you want to enforce and which ones you do not.

[wadeintothem]

I think I got 1 base on a passed pitch ball. Thats the call I'll probably make.

Int is a possibility, but I doubt it. There is nothing there to interfere with or any active hindering.

I dont have foul ball.

[wadeintothem]

Reading the responses..

I dont see how you can just kill it and TOP, even though thats the nice friendly make no enemy way. There is no rule to support that action that I know of.

On a protest how could you support that call?

We all agree its DB.

So after that its something.

IMO, there is only two possible answers, INT or a pitched ball out of play.

Its obviously a passed ball so it could never be a foul ball.

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

I don't like neither one of the rules, which is why I proposed changing 8.2.F.6 to include intent two years ago and fought against eliminating intent from the rules. However, as has been noted many times on this board, you work the rules of the association for which you are umpiring. You cannot pick and choose which ones you want to enforce and which ones you do not.

Just because "intent" is not in the rule does not defacto mean this is INT. She is in the box, a ball hitting her/her bat COULD be INT.. but could also be live ball play on.

If its live ball play on, then it could be 1 base from TOP for DBT.

These are my thoughts.. this is a good point of discussion. I'm glad I can think it through on the mb in case I do see it one day.

It is my instinct that defense owes for this play.. not offense. The have a position called a "catcher" for a reason...