Advice on the one!

[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.

[ronald]

without first going to rules and clarifications, which mike posted on an early play and i read, i believe asa would leave this to the judgement of the umpire. I request everyone read that and get back on this topic.

ron

[ronald]

it is from January 2010 and no i do not have the link. it deals with balls bouncing back from the fence behind the catcher. The key there is that what does the batter do after it has struck him or her. If it just strikes her (brain dead batter) and the batter does nothing after that that constitutes interference then it is nothing.

thus, we have a live ball in fair territory that the runner hits and impedes the catcher. look at the bunts where a batter is running and the ball just happens to nick em. what ya got? inter... same thing for me.

thanks,