Ruling on an U3K

[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.

[luvthegame]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

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.

Your question does read into the play as it was described..... hell could freeze over...or any other "possibilities" (exclusions) could happen...but they aren't a part of the OP.

But I am sure you could turn it into interference...somehow...once you have your mind made up...you will find a way!!

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by luvthegame

Your question does read into the play as it was described.....

Actually, so does your ruling, since the OP did not say what the batter's foot was doing or not doing. You assumed it was not moving. But, the OP did not say that. The OP does not say where the ball went or whether it died right there, rebounded or was imparted additional velocity by the moving foot.

You assumptions seem reasonable given the paucity of information, but they still are assumptions.

[luvthegame]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Actually, so does your ruling, since the OP did not say what the batter's foot was doing or not doing. You assumed it was not moving. But, the OP did not say that. The OP does not say where the ball went or whether it died right there, rebounded or was imparted additional velocity by the moving foot.

You assumptions seem reasonable given the paucity of information, but they still are assumptions.

They are based on the information given...(I didn't read anything in to the play) but you can turn it into what ever you want...YOU might be able to find something there, if you try hard enough...but based on the info available (again, I didn't read anything into the play)...I still have NOTHING!

And it wouldn't matter to me what the foot was doing...unless it was something intentional...if the ball bounced off the mitt and into the foot, thats probably not interference!! If the ball hits the foot, as was stated, and not the foot hitting the ball....easy enough for me to figure out!

[jmkupka]

I guess that was the gist of my question... is the play as instantaneously killable as, say, a foul ball off the batter's foot. Apparently not. Thanks guys.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by luvthegame

...unless it was something intentional...

Citation, please.

BTW, you sure are defensive.

And, you DID read something into to the OP, and that was that nothing happened that was not stated. Given the lack of detail, that was an assumption. I'm not disagreeing with your ruling, given your assumptions.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by luvthegame

And it wouldn't matter to me what the foot was doing...unless it was something intentional...if the ball bounced off the mitt and into the foot, thats probably not interference!! If the ball hits the foot, as was stated, and not the foot hitting the ball....easy enough for me to figure out!

This isn't a batted ball or a discarded bat, it is a loose, live ball with active runners. The game, as noted in the OP is ASA.

But I am sure you could turn it into interference...somehow...once you have your mind made up...you will find a way!!

Obviously, you are not paying attention. Should I just ignore the question and fit it to what I want it to be instead of what the rule book states?

A proposal a couple years ago to make intent a factor in the ASA rule crashed and burned in just about every committee and was soundly rejected by consensus.

Nonetheless, intent is not necessary, but any action by the batter which deters the defense from executing a play is INT in ASA. As previously stated, I don't like it, but that's the rule.

But just out of curiousity, let's assume the ball left the catcher's glove and hit the batter's foot as s/he was taking a step or turning toward 1B or the dugout and kicks it away from the catcher. Are you going to allow the runner which left 2B on the pitch to score because the ball was accidentally kicked?