Ruling on an U3K

[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.

[luvthegame]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Citation, please.

BTW, you sure are defensive. GEESH....make up yer mind...I was offensive last time...lol

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.

My opinion was not an assumption...just a decision made based on the information provided and stated (which for me, in this case, did not require reading anything more or assuming anything more into it)...maybe you needed more info. That's ok too.....

Looks like the OP got his question answered...so all is good!!

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by Dakota

...BTW, you sure are defensive

Who said they were mutually exclusive!

[luvthegame]

Sounds versatile and flexible.

[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?

[luvthegame]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

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.



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, I agree. but any action by the batter which deters the defense from executing a play is INT in ASA. I agree As previously stated, I don't like it, but that's the rule. But it requires an act or action...the ball being muffed into the batters foot foot is an act by the defense not the BR. Otherwise every catcher would muff a pitch into the batter or BR's foot anytime a runner were stealing a base to create interference?

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?

Nope....interference...dead ball...because the BR commited an ACT or action that impeded and hindered.

I think...(kinda loosing track now)..the OP wanted to know if it should immediately be killed...called dead...and interference enforced.

I don't think it necessarily should automatically be called interference...if the BR hasn't committed an act or action that impedes or hinders

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by luvthegame

Nope....interference...dead ball...because the BR commited an ACT or action that impeded and hindered.

I think...(kinda loosing track now)..the OP wanted to know if it should immediately be killed...called dead...and interference enforced.

I don't think it necessarily should automatically be called interference...if the BR hasn't committed an act or action that impedes or hinders

You are aguing my case as to why intent should have been inserted into the rule governing such an occurrence. Unfortunately, I picked the wrong year to try and attach intent to any interference ruling.

And I agree there should be an action by the batter and it is obvious it would have to be something we see. If the foot movement was part of the swing, I would agree with no call. However, if it was part of leaving or moving about in the BB, that would probably be INT.

[luvthegame]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

You are aguing my case as to why intent should have been inserted into the rule governing such an occurrence. Unfortunately, I picked the wrong year to try and attach intent to any interference ruling.

And I agree there should be an action by the batter and it is obvious it would have to be something we see. If the foot movement was part of the swing, I would agree with no call. However, if it was part of leaving or moving about in the BB, that would probably be INT.

I agree with you.

And also like the NCAA rule wording better.

The batter runner may not interfere with the catchers attempt to field a third strike.

Note: "If both players actions are appropriate to the situation and contact could not be avoided, it is inadvertant contact and neither interference or obstruction".....(which leans to your intent idea)....and goes on to say

"it is not interference if the batter-runner unintentionally kicks the ball that had deflected off the catcher who attempted to field a dropped third strike"

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by luvthegame

I agree with you.

So, WTFs your problem?!?!

And also like the NCAA rule wording better.

Going along so well and then you have to ruin it.

The batter runner may not interfere with the catchers attempt to field a third strike.

I hope that isn't the exact wording.

Note: "If both players actions are appropriate to the situation and contact could not be avoided, it is inadvertant contact and neither interference or obstruction".....(which leans to your intent idea)....and goes on to say

This sounds more like physical contact between the players

"it is not interference if the batter-runner unintentionally kicks the ball that had deflected off the catcher who attempted to field a dropped third strike"

That's more like it.

[luvthegame]

Yep...they make it pretty clear.