Ruling on an U3K
 

A play in a Phillies game the other night got me thinking, & couldn't find it in the book...

U3K, any contact of the ball with the B/R's person should result in Interference with catcher's chance to make an out? As soon as it bounces from mitt & hits the side of the batter's foot, am I killing the play & ringing him up (and sending stealing runners back to their base)?

ASA of course, Phillies reference irrelevant

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.

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.

I agree.

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

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.

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.

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?
:D

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!! :)

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!

Re: Wade's "As soon as" comment...
 

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.

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.