OP says....Pitch in dirt, hits F2 shin guard bounces straight up. Batter turns quickly looking down for ball.



How can the batter turning quickly looking down for the ball not be considered a natural reaction...especially with a runner on 3B. All batters will look for the ball to clue the runner on 3B on whether to steal home or not.

In fact everything the batter did is a perfectly normal reaction to what happened on this play...normal stance after a swing, normal bat position after a swing, normal reaction to the ball.

I really enjoyed reading this thread to this point.
This is a nice casebook play and I'm interested to read any further arguments.

That can be actively hindering.

That is doing something. "Normal reaction" is not an exclusion to actively hindering....

Actively hindering can be trying to NOT interfere, but doing something wrong and hindering (zigging when they should have zagged)...

I think the ruling most supportable by rule book is INT.

I think the ruling that I could/would sell right now is 1base passed ball, I'm holding F2 responsible for missing the pitch... and which is also within the rules.

I think "deadball do-over" is the nicest easy road to head down, but has no basis in any rule set. maybe you could threaten both coaches with INT/passed ball and get them to agree to the do-over and everyone loves you, but I can't see it in the rule book.

Foul ball is patently wrong.

How could you justify the catcher reaching up for this live ball to play on the active runner and having the ball batted over the fence and not calling it INT?

Whether we like it or not, the rule book supports an INT call more than anything option.

I know it does. I think there is enough wiggle room to possibly avoid the INT call, but I agree, INT is the most correct. That doesnt mean I think its dead on balls must call INT.. I just agree that by written rule its most correct.

Its a bad call though IMO.

This is on the catcher, they must catch ball.. they didnt, they muffed it.

Also, maybe the catcher wasnt reaching up to get the ball.. maybe the catcher was turning around running to the back stop to get the ball...

I think the problem is that we now have close to 4 pages on a 'what if' play. A good friend of mine says in every clinic before the Question and answer period 'what-if's are for the bar and your buying.'

Irish- your answer should be -Dead ball- that's what it is when a SP ball hits the ground on the pitch.

No one has done anything to actively hinder the play. The players are all doing what they should do, Batter is staying in the box, catcher is trying to catch the ball. Call it a dead ball, put them all on the bases at TOP and move on as quickly as you can.

Based on what rule? I ask for a single ASA rule supporting this position.

Once you have a dead ball, you have something.

ALWAYS.

And why should Irish's answer be limited to SP? WTF?

He is in charge of a whole friggin state of FP and SP and everything in between... of course I probably work with more umpires in 1 tournament than he has in his whole state... ;)

Several people have pointed out that foul ball is dead wrong. I know that. When I made the comment, I was thinking about this happening in a game, say, last week before this conversation.

"What the he|| was that? (I'm thinking). She did hit the ball out of play (I continue thinking). Oh, crap..." (going verbal now) "FOUL".

I seriously doubt anyone would say anything about the call. Of course, that doesn't make it right (it isn't).

Would I actually have done that? Well, we'll never know!

As stated by several people, the by-the-book ruling here is interference. It sits wrong, since it seems like rewarding the defense for a passed ball. But, I think that is a problem with the ASA rule book.

With a runner on 3B and a passed ball, the batter should be vacating the area. She didn't. What she did was turn, look around or something, causing her bat to come in contact with the ball, and given the distance the ball went, it must have been a fairly active movement.

I can't see this being a pitched ball out of play, since the batter's actions caused it to go out of play.

hmmm, thats a very good point.
sell that beezy baseball style "YOU THATS INT YOURE OUT!"

leave no doubt..

Which makes this one of those non-win situations...I see it as the catcher caused the entire fiasco. :)

Not according to the definition of actively hindering that Irish gave. He said "normal" reaction was one of the criteria. I know that isn't a Rule Book definition of actively hindering...I think :confused:

Once you have a dead ball, you have something.

No, once a pitched ball has hit the ground in SP it is a dead ball and you have nothing.

I understand that IRISH is the UIC of a whole state and I agree that there are more umpires working any given Tuesday night in Sacramento metro than there are in that whole state. My point in what I was saying is there is always black and white in every situation, the difference between a good umpire and the great umpire is the ability to see and use the grey effectively.

INT is going to open a can of worms that will spill all over the rest of your game, if not the whole tournament.

Just because someone wants to hand you the $hitty end of the stick does not mean that you have to grab it.

I agree!

Whatever you do, do it and sell it and dont change. Only piss off one side and move on. :D

I disagree. In my 42 years of umpiring, I've never seen a batter turn as described in the OP. Batters will turn their head looking for the ball, but the bat always stays put. Then again, I'm still trying to figure out how the bat on the batter's shoulder ends up directly over the catcher and still be on the batter's shoulder. I don't think is it possible, but that isn't why I brought the scenario over here.