Stolen from eteamz
 

Thought this one might incite a fair amount of discussion:

ASA

R1 on 3B, R2 on 1B, no outs, no count. R2 is stealing on the pitch.
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. Whats the call and where do the runners end up?

Without looking it up, I'll go with one base for each runner from TOP. (That's what I would have done had it happened last weekend. Now I'll see if I would have handled it correctly by rule.) ;)

That's one way to look at it. Personally, I'm ruling INT based upon 7.6.Q. Runners go back and batter is out.

Maybe I do need to check in on eteamz more often... nah, it's still too much of a PITA...

Anyway, what we have here is a passed ball being struck by the batter who is making a specific action not associated with her function as a batter (not trying to strike the pitch, not trying to avoid the ball; just spectating) while a runner is advancing and presumably F2 is attempting to gain control of the ball for a play.

Sounds like interference to me.

Now, in the heat of the game and without time to think about it, I may very well have called this a simple foul ball.

Or, an over the fence home run... :D

I could sell either one. [Do I need an out or a run? Forget I said that! I'd never call a game that way. :eek: Well, maybe if I'm filling in at the rec ball field.]

Your reply posted while I was typing... I assume you meant rule 7! ;)

in 7.6.Q the batter has to actively hinder the catcher while in the box... how is a ball that has been blocked into the batter and because its been blocked hits her bat and goes out of play the batters fault or an active hinderence to the catcher. My rule of thumb bat hits ball (batted ball or ball four or dropped third strike that is on the ground or in the air) a second time we have a dead ball out where as ball hits bat we have nothing. In this case the ball didnt hit the bat a second time. The first time it was hit was the batter standing in the box with a bat in their hands and the catcher blocked it into the batter. How can the batter be punished for being in the box in this situation? I would almost think it should be a foul ball or at least a dead ball in the box. The OP sounds like it was almost instintanious (hope I spelled it ok) and I would have a HARD time awarding bases or calling the batter out. Its definately a difficult application of rules any way you look at it

I'd have a hard time selling the DC on having the runners advance one base due to the actions of the batter (however unintentional that may have been). I'd have to send the runners back.

Me too. My gut reaction is to simply kill the play and put runners back to TOP bases, but my gut reaction has gotten me into trouble here before, so I'll see what the heavies have to say.

And it's "instantaneous".

I think it's a live ball until INT is called or it goes into DBT, so runners can advance until one of those.
Are we saying that "Batter turns quickly looking down" is active hindrance? I'm having trouble visualizing that, especially if the "turns quickly" is just the head or head and torso w/o the bat shoulder moving toward the ball or catcher.

FFS! Thanks, correction made.

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'm sorry, I cannot find the "Rule of Thumb" in ASA's rule book. Page number? :D

Unfortunately, the umpire doesn't have a choice. If you do not have INT, you have no basis for returning R2 and I guarantee, she will be on 2B before you figure out what happened and killed the play. If not, she is laying down on the ground and you have no bases for ignoring the defenses' inability to put that runner out because the offense hit the ball over the fence, whether it was intentional or not.

And before you start about this rule, yes, I was in the room during discussions and was one of the very few really opposing the change from the previous rule requiring intent at the convention in Colorado Springs. Unfortunately, I had my say in a handful of committees and very little backing from anyone who counts. The only reason the "actively hindering" was allowed to remain in the book is because then-Region 13 UIC, Steve Rollins fought for it to avoid the throwing at the batter's head.

I'm not disagreeing with what you want to do or think is fair, just saying that you don't have much rule book backing for any call other than INT.

Now, if the runners were just standing on the bases (more likely to happen in SP than FP), then there is no play with which to INT and a simple dead ball call is appropriate. You cannot award bases or the offense would be trying to knock every loose ball out of play.

I thought it was decided that it would be left to the umpire's judgment.:rolleyes:

I can see the active interference way of looking at this - the batter moved in a way that was not part of batting. However, I agree with you in that I don't like the idea of punishing a batter for a situation that the catcher caused by misplaying the pitch. I believe that I can easily sell this as a pitch that has gone out of play - ball on batter, runners advance 1 base from TOP. 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.

When I first heard of this, I thought they were talking about the batter hitting the ball a second time and it going out of play. In other words 'the batter swings and hits the ball, the ball hits the ground and on the follow-through or a second touch where F2 was tryinig to play the balll, the batter was called out for interference'. I can see where the catcher would allow the ball to bounce off of her and then hit the batter expecting to have me call INT.