Ruling on an U3K

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by RKBUmp

That is my understanding. All the classes I have been to have indicated that even if it is a ricochet off the catcher, if the ball contacts the batter it is dead, batter is out and all runners return.

ASA 8.2.BATTER-RUNNER IS OUT.
F. When the batter-runner interferes with:
6. (Fast Pitch) a dropped third strike.

No intent is necessary.

[luvthegame]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

ASA 8.2.BATTER-RUNNER IS OUT.
F. When the batter-runner interferes with:
6. (Fast Pitch) a dropped third strike.

No intent is necessary.

But is an "act" necessary?

Since act is part of the interference definition.

In other words does the offensive player have to do something to interfer?

(in reference to OP, ball hitting mitt then BR)

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by luvthegame

But is an "act" necessary?

Since act is part of the interference definition.

In other words does the offensive player have to do something to interfer?

(in reference to OP, ball hitting mitt then BR)

Precisely!!

To me, the prior rulings are taking the case over the line. The case book rulings refer to the batter kicking the ball while exiting; that is interference. Being in the batter's box when the catcher muffs the ball into the batter isn't interference. There has to be an "act" which interferes.

Intent not required doesn't change the definition that an action is required. Use the same mental criteria as the batter standing in the batter's box when the catcher wants to throw the ball. Unless a rule specificly requires a participant to yield a space (batter must allow a play at the plate, on-deck batters and base coaches must yield to allow a play on the ball), passively remaining in a legal space isn't interference, even if the ball touches them there.

[luvthegame]

I agree.

So, in reference to OP (as explained) play...we probably have NOTHING.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by luvthegame

I agree.

So, in reference to OP (as explained) play...we probably have NOTHING.

That depends. The OP stated it hit the foot. We were not told where the foot was, if it was moving, etc. If the foot isn't moving, then I have nothing. If the foot is moving, but has no affect on the ball and the catcher's ability to retreive it in a simple manner, no problem.

If the foot is moving, even in a pivoting fashion, and it "kicks" the ball away from the catcher, I would probably rule INT. Don't like it, but it has been made clear that intent is not an issue.

[luvthegame]

The OP states the ball "bounces from mitt & hits the side of the batters foot."

Without trying to read anything else into it..thats clear enough for me....NOTHING!

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by luvthegame

The OP states the ball "bounces from mitt & hits the side of the batters foot."

Without trying to read anything else into it..thats clear enough for me....NOTHING!

So, if the batter's foot is pivoting and knocks the ball away from the catcher and R1 goes from 1B to 3B, that's okay with you?


Not reading anything into the play, but not excluding anything either.

[wadeintothem]

IMO, "As soon as" is the improper way to look at this potential INT call.

A ball hitting the foot is not necessarily INT. I think, as with all calls, especially INT, you review in your mind and assess and make your call (or non call). Give it a moment, dont do anything "as soon as".

Whats the big rush.

if you do have INT, everything is going back anyway, so you definately have a time to assess the situation to determine whether there is INT and a call to be made.

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

Precisely!!

To me, the prior rulings are taking the case over the line. The case book rulings refer to the batter kicking the ball while exiting; that is interference. Being in the batter's box when the catcher muffs the ball into the batter isn't interference. There has to be an "act" which interferes.

Intent not required doesn't change the definition that an action is required. Use the same mental criteria as the batter standing in the batter's box when the catcher wants to throw the ball. Unless a rule specificly requires a participant to yield a space (batter must allow a play at the plate, on-deck batters and base coaches must yield to allow a play on the ball), passively remaining in a legal space isn't interference, even if the ball touches them there.

I was UIC at a field this weekend and this situation came up and i advised as has been discussed here that if there was INT on the play by the BR, the BR was out. Obviously the rule is as it is in ASA. (post game discussion, the umps sold a noncall during the game, so there was no protest). Their feeling was the defense blew it to begin with (logical reasoning IMO, but as described by rule I told them it was INT). In the play, the BR kicked the ball as she was exiting to 1B. Defense was unable to make a play on the BR.

I told the umps that I thought there was a case play on this and I would get back to them, but now that I am looking for it - I dont see one.

Does anyone know of a case play which involves D3K int?

[AtlUmpSteve]

Without doing the research (sorry, just got in from a late game, and plan to hit the sack), I believe it was a ruling on a case play posted on the ASA website by KR.