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.

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.

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.

[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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

Yes

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

Pure talent is how that happens ;)

This pretty clearly a FP scenario or there is nothing to discuss...

I'm not in sac metro...



Thats a nice slogan for a power point, but that bs only carries you so far. YOu have to be able to support it by rule.

I got a 18G NQ in a few weeks. You aint bluffin coaches like Gary Haning, Bob Perales, Phil Mumma, Don Ford etc.

I know everyone one of them and they are unbluffable. You have to know your crap.

What ever end you grab, when the protest is lodged, you better be able to support your position by the rule book.

Dead ball do over does not exist in ASA.

Now that it has been brought up by the originator, why was this brought over here?

This is obvious by three out of every four posts you make. I was using it as an example of how small the state was, not where you are from. Sierra Nevada Mountains are a big range and not specific.

I do agree that whatever you call on this play it better be big and strong and you better hope that no one protests. Because after 4 pages in here I can only imagine what the post game talk with the tournament UIC will sound like, and I am sure none of the discussion will be about the 4th dimension:cool:

Ha! Yeah, I'm thinking no coach would wont to hear about the 4th diminesion on this play.

I think the UIC has to come right now and sort it out... this call is a game stopper IMO.

:D

Call that batter out.. offense has a heart attack..

Award the run.. holy moly...

I changed my mind, I go with the INT.

Man I dont think fast enough!

See thats why Irish brought it over here.

18g NQ you better be thinking and seeing fast.
:eek:

"Mr. UIC, the ball bounced up off the catcher and, IMJ, the batter hit the ball with the bat in an unusual motion in the box and actively hindered the defense from making a play on the runner attempting to steal."

See how simple that was?

LOL

yep, definitely the easiest sell.. dead on with the rules..
I like that "unusual motion" .. nice touch... :D

So how much are we getting to sell our soul to the devil? :)

Great sell, now if only we had heard that 3 pages ago I could be in bed right now instead of trying to think of how this was going to be sold.

I hope my 18gNQ tomarrow that craziness doesnt happen. Im to BFE Country to be thinking and seeing fast..... :D at least according to some people here

I think the call holds on appeal either way it is called. Irish, no problem with your sell. But one could just as easily say:

"Mr. UIC, the pitched ball went off the catcher to dead ball territory. It happened to hit the batter's bat on the way out and could just have easily have hit his helmet. He did nohing to interfere. I have 1 base for all from TOP."

He did nohing to interfere. I have 1 base for all from TOP."

Worded better:
"In my judgement there was no interference bu the batter"


robbie
View Public Profile
Send a private message to robbie
Find all posts by robbie
Add robbie to Your Buddy List

In my view, the question should be: "What provided the impetus to propel the ball out of play?"

Was it the pitcher, whose fast ball had enough energy to richocet off a bat and go over the fence?

Was it the bat, swung by the batter's rotational movement, that hit the ball and provided enough energy for the ball to clear the fence?

Only the one who saw this play can answer the question. But when you answer it, then your decision is clear: pitched ball out of play, advance runner. Ball batted out of play, INT and return runners.

Is this, conceptually, any different from the discarded bat issue? Bat hit ball, Interference. Ball hits bat, play on.

WMB

I sent it in to my assignor and he sent it in and got this response:

>To: Craig Cress
>Subject: fast-pitch rule

>fast pitch question: runners on 1st and 3rd, no outs, no count on batter-
>a pitched ball hits the ground in front of home plate, bounces up and hits >the catcher in the shin guard, bounces off the shin guard, bounces up and >hits the batters bat, while this is happening the runner from 1st
>base is stealing second base. is this a no call, a dead ball and send runner >back to 1st or is it batters interference?

I have spoken with Kevin and our interpretation based on the information
given to us by you is that we play on. We would not penalize the
Offensive team in this case because the ball got to the bat by 2 actions
of the defensive team - the pitcher bouncing the pitch and the catcher
having it go off her shin guard versus blocking and controlling.
So we would have a 'no call' based on the information given to us.


Respectfully,

Craig Cress
Director of Membership Services
ASA/USA Softball
2801 N.E. 50th Street
Oklahoma City, OK 73111
(405) 425-3441

Dukat - you left out the two things that make this play so interesting and are the basis of the differing views.

1. The batter turned to look for the ball, moving her body and bat.
2. The ball ricocheted off the catcher, then hit the batter's bat and went out of play.

The play that Craig's answer was based on is basically a no-brainer.

That was my thought when Mike first posted -- something like the TD or SAFETY call in football. (I know, I know ... a different sport with a rule set that doesn't apply.) Which team provided the impetus for the ball going into dead ball territory? I still think I could sell either call. :cool: