Interference? Or no call?

[WestMichiganBlue]

Uncaught 3K pops forward out of catcher's mitt, and

(a) hits B-R's foot as she is running and deflects away from the catcher, or

(b) is deflected by B-R's foot away from catcher.

Both NFHS and ASA call a B-R out for interference on a dropped third strike. USSSA is a bit more detailed, calling the B-R out for "interfering with the catcher's attempt to field the ball after a third strike."

My assumption on the intent of this rule is to prevent physical contact between the B-R and F2, not to call interference because the loose ball hits the B-R or is hit by the B-R after F2 failed to catch the ball.

Is it fair to penalize the offense after the defense failed to catch the ball?

(BTW - this occured in a 14U USSSA game Sunday).

WMB

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by WestMichiganBlue

Uncaught 3K pops forward out of catcher's mitt, and

(a) hits B-R's foot as she is running and deflects away from the catcher, or

(b) is deflected by B-R's foot away from catcher.

Both NFHS and ASA call a B-R out for interference on a dropped third strike. USSSA is a bit more detailed, calling the B-R out for "interfering with the catcher's attempt to field the ball after a third strike."

My assumption on the intent of this rule is to prevent physical contact between the B-R and F2, not to call interference because the loose ball hits the B-R or is hit by the B-R after F2 failed to catch the ball.

Is it fair to penalize the offense after the defense failed to catch the ball?

You are absolutely correct. The batter should just be called out and there should be no U3K. After all, the offense failed to put the ball into play, so why penalize the defense?

[SC Ump]

Originally Posted by WestMichiganBlue

Both NFHS and ASA call a B-R out ...

Is it fair...

I have never thought it fair to penalize the batter. The catcher already had a chance to catch it and messed up.

I believe most would call it differently if similar happened on base. (SIT: With R1 on first, the ball is hit sharply to F3. The ball bounces out of F3's glove, bounds approximately 4 feet away and hits R1's foot.)

However, I agree with you that the rules state in the original situations the batter is out. If I'm ever good enough to be invited to be a member of a rules committee, I'll attempt to change it... right after I rename the foul lines to "fair lines".

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by SC Ump

I have never thought it fair to penalize the batter. The catcher already had a chance to catch it and messed up.

Why is it everyone is ready to give the benefit of the doubt to the batter because the catcher failed to catch the ball? Why is it everyone conviently forgets the batter failed prior to the catcher?

I believe most would call it differently if similar happened on base. (SIT: With R1 on first, the ball is hit sharply to F3. The ball bounces out of F3's glove, bounds approximately 4 feet away and hits R1's foot.)

Could that be because the offense didn't do any wrong in this situation?

However, I agree with you that the rules state in the original situations the batter is out. If I'm ever good enough to be invited to be a member of a rules committee, I'll attempt to change it... right after I rename the foul lines to "fair lines".

Well, there is no such animal. I tried to have it changed a couple years ago, but it went nowhere.