Scenario - Int/Db/NonCall .. ?

[wadeintothem]

An association discussion that I thought had some interesting forks in the road.

R1 on 2B, R2 on 1B, no outs, called strike. F2 steps forward with the ball in bare hand ready to throw to second, but as umpire you determine she was not making a play on the runners. As the batter is bringing her bat back up to her shoulder, she inadvertently hits the ball out of the catchers hand.

In:
A) Runners do not steal and catcher was not making an attempt to throw out a runner. Catcher runs to retrieve the ball.
Or:
B) Upon seeing the ball hit the ground, R1 and R2 steal the next base - ending on 3B and 2B respectively.

What is the proper call and authority or what action do you take in each case?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by wadeintothem

An association discussion that I thought had some interesting forks in the road.

R1 on 2B, R2 on 1B, no outs, called strike. F2 steps forward with the ball in bare hand ready to throw to second, but as umpire you determine she was not making a play on the runners. As the batter is bringing her bat back up to her shoulder, she inadvertently hits the ball out of the catchers hand.

Speaking ASA

A) Runners do not steal and catcher was not making an attempt to throw out a runner. Catcher runs to retrieve the ball.

Sort of curious why the catcher was throwing the ball to 2B if not making an attempt to throw out a runner.

Dead ball, no runners advance, instruct the batter to the BB and "play".

B) Upon seeing the ball hit the ground, R1 and R2 steal the next base - ending on 3B and 2B respectively.

(Assuming "hit the ground" refers to after the bat hit the ball) If they were not advancing when the bat hit the ball, it is same as above.

What is the proper call and authority or what action do you take in each case?

ASA 7.6.EFFECT P-S.EXCEPTION

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by wadeintothem

... but as umpire you determine she was not making a play on the runners. ...

That's the key to the ruling. There was no play, so there is no interference. I agree with Mike's ruling and rule reference.

[Steve M]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Speaking ASA



Sort of curious why the catcher was throwing the ball to 2B if not making an attempt to throw out a runner.

Dead ball, no runners advance, instruct the batter to the BB and "play".



(Assuming "hit the ground" refers to after the bat hit the ball) If they were not advancing when the bat hit the ball, it is same as above.



ASA 7.6.EFFECT P-S.EXCEPTION

Fed has a very similar ruling for interference happening while there is no play to be made.

[wadeintothem]

Those rules infer...

Common sense also infers, so an invocation of Rule 10 based on inference could also work..

But IMO, that rule does not address this situation.

That rule also states a strike is called.. for the sake of argument, the batter did not ever swing at the pitch.

A thought..

If the runners take off, do you then have interference? At the point an interference of the defense was created.

I do agree dead ball to be the easiest path out of this play and what I would likely do if I had too...

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by wadeintothem

Those rules infer...

Common sense also infers, so an invocation of Rule 10 based on inference could also work..

But IMO, that rule does not address this situation.

That rule also states a strike is called.. for the sake of argument, the batter did not ever swing at the pitch.

WTF are you talking about? Not only does the cited rule NOT have anything to do with ruling a strike, it addresses the situation noted.

A thought..

If the runners take off, do you then have interference? At the point an interference of the defense was created.

That has already been addressed. If the runners were stealing on the play, INT is the call. If not, it was a dead ball at the time of contact, so no further action is allowed.

I do agree dead ball to be the easiest path out of this play and what I would likely do if I had too...

Now, that was on point that was not addressed.

Either you are on something a little stronger than Benedryl or you are downwind of the burning of the evidence from that pot farm discovered near Crystal Cave.

[Dakota]

wade, in the OP, the umpire's judgment was there was no play being made on a base runner before the batter knocked the ball loose. In the (B) scenario, where the players attempt to advance, they only do so after the batter knocks the ball loose. Seems very clear to me: batter inadvertently "interferes" (using dictionary definition) with the catcher when there is no play being made. This is a dead ball. Since it is a dead ball, the runners' advances in the (B) scenario officially did not happen, so they are returned.

Now, if you want to "what if" the scenario offered, and change the judgment of "no play" to "runners advancing and THEN the batter knocks the ball loose", OK, but that is not the OP scenario.

[wadeintothem]

I think so too.
I was trying to come up with some kinda back door to INT but the dog aint huntin'.