Stolen from eteamz

[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.

[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...

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by wadeintothem

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.

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.

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

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...

[outathm]

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.

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by outathm

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.

[Dakota]

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.

[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.