Advice on the one!

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

DEAD BALL! DEAD BALL! DEAD BALL! Batter is OUT.

Absolutely, 8.2.F.6

There was an attempt a few years ago to add "intent" to this play, but it was the wrong year to bring up that type of change in the interference rules.

[DeputyUICHousto]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Absolutely, 8.2.F.6

There was an attempt a few years ago to add "intent" to this play, but it was the wrong year to bring up that type of change in the interference rules.

interference when a runner is running the bases and goes in standing up at 3rd base and is hit with a thrown ball? I'm a bit confused here. The batter had her chance to hit the ball...but the catcher had her chance to field the ball.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by DeputyUICHousto

interference when a runner is running the bases and goes in standing up at 3rd base and is hit with a thrown ball? I'm a bit confused here. The batter had her chance to hit the ball...but the catcher had her chance to field the ball.

Doesn't make any difference. It is an U3K and the BR kicked it. Didn't say I like it, but it is what it is.

[DeputyUICHousto]

the word "intentional" from the interference rule in almost all instances. But, how can you distinguish between the two plays...A runner running in to 3rd base who is hit with a thrown ball (didn't even know it was coming) and the batter/runner running to first base on a dropped 3rd strike who has no idea where the ball is laying? In both cases you have a runner who may have kept the defense from making a play. I can't see interference here.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by DeputyUICHousto

the word "intentional" from the interference rule in almost all instances. But, how can you distinguish between the two plays...A runner running in to 3rd base who is hit with a thrown ball (didn't even know it was coming) and the batter/runner running to first base on a dropped 3rd strike who has no idea where the ball is laying? In both cases you have a runner who may have kept the defense from making a play. I can't see interference here.

I lied, the proposed change was for 2006.

The proposed change was to add the word "intentionally" to the rule. The cause offered for the change stated, "Don't believe the BR should be responsible for avoiding a dropped third strike that rebounded off or was inadvertently swatted by the catcher or umpire."

It was shot down in all committees.

[SC Ump]

Originally Posted by DeputyUICHousto

... the batter/runner running to first base on a dropped 3rd strike who has no idea where the ball is laying?

But shoulding they have an idea where it is laying? Did they only run to first because everyone was yelling "run"?

My personal (a.k.a. meaningless to the rule) thought process on this is the same as a batted ball that is being fielded by a fielder. That ball is still within a step and a reach of the fielder so it is interference if a runner kicks it. However, I cannot always make logic out of why some rules are written as they are, so I just call them that way.

[DeputyUICHousto]

Originally Posted by SC Ump

this is the same as a batted ball that is being fielded by a fielder.

How can you think of this as a "batted" ball? To me it is more like a thrown ball.

[AtlUmpSteve]

The difference, in my opinion, is that the ball sitting on home plate is in front of the BR; she should be able (and therefore required) to avoid interfering with it. Any ball in front of you (well, almost any) should be avoidable.

But a thrown ball is most often from a blind side; and the onus is based on the runner doing something specific and active to interfere, as opposed to failing to take reasonable caution to not interfere.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by DeputyUICHousto

How can you think of this as a "batted" ball? To me it is more like a thrown ball.

It is a ball/event that makes the B a BR.