Ruling on an U3K

[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.