'Slapper' Batter/Runner interference question

[okla21fan]

First post here, but a long time lurker. I have searched the forum but don't see if this situation has ever been brought up.

I brought this situation up to a local metro deputy UIC and his 'results' are also sighted:


this is long so hear me out
(my original email to UIC)

play:

batter/runner hits a ball that rests in front of home plate in fair territory, and is running completely in fair territory BEFORE reaching the 30 foot running lane. (lets just say this is a typical 'California slapper' technique.) catcher (F2), fields the ball in fair territory and throws the ball towards 1st base. BEFORE the batter/runner reaches the 'running lane', batter/runner is hit with the ball WHILE completely in fair territory, but also taking a direct line to the '30 foot running lane'. What is the result of the play?

Rule 8, section 2-F-3 states that the 'batter/runner is out' if 'the batter/runner interferes with a thrown ball while out of the batter's box

also in the RULES SUPPLEMENT (POE)

section 33-A-3 states that INTERFERENCE includes 'interfering with a thrown ball'.

I have yet to find any exception siting the 'batter/runner is not out' BEFORE the running line.

NOW HERE IS A PROBLEM!!!!!!

The latest ASA Umpire's Casebook version I have is from 2007, but I would be surprised if it has actually changed:

PLAY 8.2-16 (d)

B1 hits the ball and it rolls in front of home plate. The fielder throws to 1B and hits B1 (d) 'in the first thirty feet between home and 1st base.'

Ruling of (d)
B1 is not out and the ball remains live (1-INTERFERENCE; 8-2E). The problem is the 8-2E is not applicable to this play.

It is possible this my case book is out date, but I would like to have a clarification as to what rule the Case Book is referring to, as I seem to remember in clinics this being talked about but no rule sited. From what I can find in the Rule Book, there is no such rule to substantiate not calling interference.

the UIC's response:
"the rule you are looking at 8-2-f-3, applys to a batter who interfers with the catchters throw on a steal. Remember the running lane is there only to give catcher an unobstructed throw to first base, therefore prior to the runner reaching the running lane she may run in fair territory, all I have at this time is a poor throw from the catcher. I will find the rule support for this and let you know. "

my response:
Be definition of the rule, all of Rule 8 applies to when a better becomes a base runner, so hear me out:

Rule 8

Section 1. THE BATTER BECOMES A BATTER-RUNNER.

A. As soon as the batter legally hits a fair ball.

Section 2. BATTER-RUNNER IS OUT.

F. When the batter-runner interferes with:
3. a thrown ball while out of the batter’s box

You are saying that Rule 7 is also being applied to rule 8-2F-3 and more so, what your are inferring to, as already addressed in Rule 7

Rule 7 Section 6. THE BATTER IS OUT.

P. When hindering the catcher from catching or throwing the ball by stepping

out of the batter’s box.

Since in this play, the batter has already become a 'batter/runner' by definition, rule 7 should not apply. I have still have yet to find anything in rule 8 or any other part of the rule book that supports PLAY 8.2-16 (d) in the CASE BOOK.


I have never gotten a response to this play in over a year.

Your thoughts?
thanks in advance

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by okla21fan

First post here, but a long time lurker. I have searched the forum but don't see if this situation has ever been brought up.

I brought this situation up to a local metro deputy UIC and his 'results' are also sighted:


this is long so hear me out
(my original email to UIC)

play:

batter/runner hits a ball that rests in front of home plate in fair territory, and is running completely in fair territory BEFORE reaching the 30 foot running lane. (lets just say this is a typical 'California slapper' technique.) catcher (F2), fields the ball in fair territory and throws the ball towards 1st base. BEFORE the batter/runner reaches the 'running lane', batter/runner is hit with the ball WHILE completely in fair territory, but also taking a direct line to the '30 foot running lane'. What is the result of the play?

Rule 8, section 2-F-3 states that the 'batter/runner is out' if 'the batter/runner interferes with a thrown ball while out of the batter's box

also in the RULES SUPPLEMENT (POE)

section 33-A-3 states that INTERFERENCE includes 'interfering with a thrown ball'.

I have yet to find any exception siting the 'batter/runner is not out' BEFORE the running line.

NOW HERE IS A PROBLEM!!!!!!

The latest ASA Umpire's Casebook version I have is from 2007, but I would be surprised if it has actually changed:

PLAY 8.2-16 (d)

B1 hits the ball and it rolls in front of home plate. The fielder throws to 1B and hits B1 (d) 'in the first thirty feet between home and 1st base.'

Ruling of (d)
B1 is not out and the ball remains live (1-INTERFERENCE; 8-2E). The problem is the 8-2E is not applicable to this play.

It is possible this my case book is out date, but I would like to have a clarification as to what rule the Case Book is referring to, as I seem to remember in clinics this being talked about but no rule sited. From what I can find in the Rule Book, there is no such rule to substantiate not calling interference.

the UIC's response:
"the rule you are looking at 8-2-f-3, applys to a batter who interfers with the catchters throw on a steal. Remember the running lane is there only to give catcher an unobstructed throw to first base, therefore prior to the runner reaching the running lane she may run in fair territory, all I have at this time is a poor throw from the catcher. I will find the rule support for this and let you know. "

my response:
Be definition of the rule, all of Rule 8 applies to when a better becomes a base runner, so hear me out:

Rule 8

Section 1. THE BATTER BECOMES A BATTER-RUNNER.

A. As soon as the batter legally hits a fair ball.

Section 2. BATTER-RUNNER IS OUT.

F. When the batter-runner interferes with:
3. a thrown ball while out of the batter’s box

You are saying that Rule 7 is also being applied to rule 8-2F-3 and more so, what your are inferring to, as already addressed in Rule 7

Rule 7 Section 6. THE BATTER IS OUT.

P. When hindering the catcher from catching or throwing the ball by stepping

out of the batter’s box.

Since in this play, the batter has already become a 'batter/runner' by definition, rule 7 should not apply. I have still have yet to find anything in rule 8 or any other part of the rule book that supports PLAY 8.2-16 (d) in the CASE BOOK.


I have never gotten a response to this play in over a year.

Your thoughts?
thanks in advance

Well, I see you like to make a grand entrance, welcome.

Rule 7 has no bearing on this play, so you are correct to dump that portion.

It all comes down to "what did the BR do to interfere"?

Please don't say "running in fair territory" as there is no rule dictating where a runner can or cannot run at any time.

The answer is the second word of the definition of "Interference" in Rule 1. The BR must actually do something to interfere. A player's mere presence is not an "act" of interference.

This is just a DMC.

[okla21fan]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

It all comes down to "what did the BR do to interfere"?

Please don't say "running in fair territory" as there is no rule dictating where a runner can or cannot run at any time.

I would dis agree with that statement, simply based on the 'running lane' alone and running between home and first in this case. I understand this is not the case when running between other bases (where the runner 'creates' their own baseline unless a tag play is being made on them)

The answer is the second word of the definition of "Interference" in Rule 1. The BR must actually do something to interfere. A player's mere presence is not an "act" of interference.

Since the ASA rule book has been so 'vanilla-ized' over the past few years, and one key element of interference has been removed (in this case intent). I am not sure about your interpretation here either.

my question is , if a batter/runner is 'OUT' when struck by a thrown ball OUTSIDE the running lane, why would this play not be applicable to this rule? If the runner had reached the running lane and is struck with a thrown ball over fair territory, we have an out.

This maybe more of a rule book clarification, but reading the book and interpreting the black and white as the book reads today. It appears that an out should be called. (whether I agree with that or not)

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by okla21fan

I would dis agree with that statement, simply based on the 'running lane' alone and running between home and first in this case. I understand this is not the case when running between other bases (where the runner 'creates' their own baseline unless a tag play is being made on them)

Since the ASA rule book has been so 'vanilla-ized' over the past few years, and one key element of interference has been removed (in this case intent). I am not sure about your interpretation here either.

my question is , if a batter/runner is 'OUT' when struck by a thrown ball OUTSIDE the running lane, why would this play not be applicable to this rule? If the runner had reached the running lane and is struck with a thrown ball over fair territory, we have an out.

This maybe more of a rule book clarification, but reading the book and interpreting the black and white as the book reads today. It appears that an out should be called. (whether I agree with that or not)

Two points you seem to be missing:
1) Irish said nothing about intent, just "actually do something to interfere"; regardless of intent or accident; like changing direction or speed.

2) The rules do not say the BR can't run outside the running lane, just that the BR is out if that interferes with the fielder receiving the throw at 1st.

Welcome A(board)

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by okla21fan

I would dis agree with that statement, simply based on the 'running lane' alone and running between home and first in this case. I understand this is not the case when running between other bases (where the runner 'creates' their own baseline unless a tag play is being made on them)

Actually, it is a "basepath", not a baseline. The 3' lane only offers protection against being called for INT with the defender attempting to field a throw at 1B. There is no rule that states the runner MUST run within the 3' land the last half of the distance to 1B.

Since the ASA rule book has been so 'vanilla-ized' over the past few years, and one key element of interference has been removed (in this case intent). I am not sure about your interpretation here either.

You are going to have to trust me, there are not many people in ASA that has discussed the "intent" factor as it pertains to INT than I have. "Intent" is neither a factor in your scenario or applicable rule.

my question is , if a batter/runner is 'OUT' when struck by a thrown ball OUTSIDE the running lane, why would this play not be applicable to this rule?

Because you said it wasn't. The 3' lane (2.3.A), nor applicable rule (8.2.E) are not in effect until it actually begins which is halfway to 1B from the plate.

If the runner had reached the running lane and is struck with a thrown ball over fair territory, we have an out.

Only if it affected the defender's ability to receive the throw AT 1B and the throw wasn't coming from foul territory.

This maybe more of a rule book clarification, but reading the book and interpreting the black and white as the book reads today. It appears that an out should be called. (whether I agree with that or not)

Well, you are going to lose that protest.

[okla21fan]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Well, you are going to lose that protest.

This is not a win or lose issue, but attempting to understand and apply the rule book.

On this particular situation, there are rules sited justifying an out for interference.

Rule 8
Section 2. BATTER-RUNNER IS OUT.

F. When the batter-runner interferes with:
3. a thrown ball while out of the batter’s box

also the rule book states in Rule 8 Section 2

E. When the batter-runner runs outside the three-foot lane and, in the umpire’s judgment, interferes with the fielder taking the throw at first base; however, the batter-runner may run outside the three-foot lane to avoid a fielder attempting to field a batted ball. When the defensive player uses the colored portion of the double base, the batter-runner can run in fair territory when the throw is coming from the foul side of first base, and if hit by the thrown ball, it is not interference. If intentional interference is ruled, the runner is out.

This maybe more of the problem as this is the rule sited in the CASE BOOK indicating that there is NO INTERFERENCE but there is a problem. As in this particular play, the throw is NOT coming from the foul side of first base.

What I am looking for is just what rule, exception or effect in the rule book that would take precedence and be applied over the Rule 8.2.F.3 sited above? (which I never seem to get an answer no matter where or whom I ask)

It is not that I am disagreeing with anyone, it is that there does not seem to be a rule in the book to apply to defend not calling interference. (other than 'do we call interference on a Runner running for 1st to 2nd base and is hit with a thrown ball from behind')

[Dakota]

Rule 0: In making a ruling, only use rules that apply to the situation.

Forget the running lane rule. It does not apply to your situation because the BR had not yet reached the 30' point. For clarity: Rule 8-2-E does not apply to your original situation. You can forget what it says; it does not apply.

And, finally, 8-2-E is not applicable.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Let me try.

8.2-F(3) requires an act of interference. Your play doesn't describe anything that constitutes an act of interference; running in fair territory when the running lane does not apply isn't an act of interference. 8.2-F(3) applies to something specifically done that intereferes with the thrown ball. So, absent an act of interference, citing (not sighting or siting) this rule does not support an out.

The reference to 8.2-E in the case play is to point out that the presumed running lane also does not apply until the BR reaches it. That is the key part to the case play and the reason it exists to clarify an approved ruling; when it applies, it constitutes interference, when it doesn't apply, the runner is free to run anywhere and any way that doesn't violate another specific rule (because it then isn't interference). It is the perfect citation for "not an out"; you disagree with it because you want a rule cited that makes it an out. There is no such rule.

There is no specific rule, exception, or effect that makes that play an out. There is an approved ruling clarified in the case book. What more do you need?

[okla21fan]

Originally Posted by Dakota

And, finally, 8-2-E is not applicable.

While I agree, but the case book sites 8.2.E in reference for NOT calling interference for some reason.

thus why I am asking what rule should be sited to take precedence over 8.2.F.3

[IRISHMAFIA]

It is not that I am disagreeing with anyone,

Of course, you are or we wouldn't have reached this point.

Look, you asked the question and were supplied answers. You asked the UIC and got an answer you didn't like. You asked here and got an answer you didn't like. You continue an attempt to justify your contention that the rule book is lacking when, in fact, in this case it is not.

This is like a traveling salesman trying to sell a cow pie to a cattle farmer. Your attempt to twist and turn anything related to INT on a BR into something it isn't is just plain old bull****.

Every scenario is not in ANY rules book. Just because a negative isn't proven doesn't mean it is not addressed.

Does your scenario meet any specific violation in the rule book? Obviously not, or that rule would have been cited. So, if it isn't a violation, it must not be against any rules, hence legal and in play.

Let me play your game. B4 hits a ball on an open field for an eventual home run. The player runs to 1B, then 3B, then 2B and finally, to home.

The defense appeals the runner for missing 2B and for generally not running the bases in the proper order.

Should the run be allowed to score? If not, why not?

[okla21fan]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

Let me try.

8.2-F(3) requires an act of interference. Your play doesn't describe anything that constitutes an act of interference; running in fair territory when the running lane does not apply isn't an act of interference. 8.2-F(3) applies to something specifically done that intereferes with the thrown ball. So, absent an act of interference, citing (not sighting or siting) this rule does not support an out.

The reference to 8.2-E in the case play is to point out that the presumed running lane also does not apply until the BR reaches it. That is the key part to the case play and the reason it exists to clarify an approved ruling; when it applies, it constitutes interference, when it doesn't apply, the runner is free to run anywhere and any way that doesn't violate another specific rule (because it then isn't interference). It is the perfect citation for "not an out"; you disagree with it because you want a rule cited that makes it an out. There is no such rule.

There is no specific rule, exception, or effect that makes that play an out. There is an approved ruling clarified in the case book. What more do you need?

that makes more sense. I think my issue is that being stuck by a thrown ball in reference to 8.2.F.3 would be interference. Especially now with taking out 'intent' in interference.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

...citing (not sighting or siting)...

Oh, I don't know about that; you do have to sight the rule before you can cite it, and the situation has a site where it occurred (even if it is sited only in someone's brain...).

[IRISHMAFIA]

8.2-F(3) requires an act of interference. Your play doesn't describe anything that constitutes an act of interference; running in fair territory when the running lane does not apply isn't an act of interference. 8.2-F(3) applies to something specifically done that intereferes with the thrown ball.

or

The answer is the second word of the definition of "Interference" in Rule 1. The BR must actually do something to interfere. A player's mere presence is not an "act" of interference.


So, absent an act of interference, citing (not sighting or siting) this rule does not support an out.

or

It all comes down to "what did the BR do to interfere"?

The reference to 8.2-E in the case play is to point out that the presumed running lane also does not apply until the BR reaches it. That is the key part to the case play and the reason it exists to clarify an approved ruling; when it applies, it constitutes interference, when it doesn't apply, the runner is free to run anywhere and any way that doesn't violate another specific rule (because it then isn't interference). It is the perfect citation for "not an out"; you disagree with it because you want a rule cited that makes it an out. There is no such rule.

or

Please don't say "running in fair territory" as there is no rule dictating where a runner can or cannot run at any time.

There is no specific rule, exception, or effect that makes that play an out. There is an approved ruling clarified in the case book. What more do you need?

or

This is just a DMC.


The way you shovel it, your "bulls" in GA must have sweeter smelling ****.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

[b]The way you shovel it, your "bulls" in GA must have sweeter smelling ****.

Thanks, buddy. I will take that as a compliment.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

Thanks, buddy. I will take that as a compliment.

Oh, it was. BTW, set up in Reno. Flight is a pain in the ***, but that's life. Layover in SLC.

FYI, Peppermill has free airport shuttle that runs every 30 min and free internet access.