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.

[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.

[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 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.

[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.

[Dholloway1962]

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

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

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

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.

[NYBLUE]

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

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by Dholloway1962

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.

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.

[Dholloway1962]

Originally Posted by wadeintothem

That can be actively hindering.

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

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Dholloway1962

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 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.

[Dholloway1962]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

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.

Pure talent is how that happens