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.

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!!

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, 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?

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.:o

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"

So, WTFs your problem?!?! :cool:

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

I hope that isn't the exact wording.

This sounds more like physical contact between the players

That's more like it. :D

Yep...they make it pretty clear.

Who said they were mutually exclusive! :D

Sounds versatile and flexible. ;)

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?

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.