Play from Iraq

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

It is ASA and my ruling would be two bases from the time the defender last touched the ball based upon the July 2009 Rule Clarification that a fielder who kicks a ball and it leaves play based on that impetus (as opposed to that of a batted ball deflecting off a fielder and leaving play) being handled the same as if the fielder threw the ball.

Since F5 redirected the ball to the point of causing it to leave play that is the point from which my award will be.

For those who believe the runner has any bearing on this, citations please and, BTW, 8.5.I.4, 8.7.L is not in effect, but 8.8.F is

Now, 8.5.I.2 may be in contention, but you would have to ignore the aforementioned rules classification. I don't believe being a batted ball had anything to do with the ball entering DBT.

Understand that application, but as I read the play (HTBT), it doesn't read that the fielder provided a new impetus. The act of "booting" the ball, to me, is not a new impetus, it simply redirects the batted ball, making it a deflected ball, 8.5-I(4). It reads to me that if there was a new impetus at all, it was the runner inadvertantly tripping and kicking the ball. The only rule applying to that is 8.5-I(4), and that rule also awards bases at the time of the pitch.

HTBT, or an issue of understanding what the writer meant and judged to have happen. There are actually two differing definitions of "booting", so we don't know what the writer actually meant. It can mean actually "kicking", but in sports slang (both football and baseball), it is a synonym to "muffing", or simply failing make the play!! If F5 did add a new impetus, not simply redirect the existing force, then I can agree with you, Mike. But simply changing the direction (where booting is muffing) is deflecting, not a new impetus, and then I would still believe that 8.5-I(2) is the definitive citation, and that 8.5-I(4) and 8.8-F are subsequent and incidental action, and only supportive of clarifying that the runner is not out.

We could both be right based on the original post, and HTBT.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

Understand that application, but as I read the play (HTBT), it doesn't read that the fielder provided a new impetus. The act of "booting" the ball, to me, is not a new impetus, it simply redirects the batted ball, making it a deflected ball, 8.5-I(4). It reads to me that if there was a new impetus at all, it was the runner inadvertantly tripping and kicking the ball. The only rule applying to that is 8.5-I(4), and that rule also awards bases at the time of the pitch.

HTBT, or an issue of understanding what the writer meant and judged to have happen. There are actually two differing definitions of "booting", so we don't know what the writer actually meant. It can mean actually "kicking", but in sports slang (both football and baseball), it is a synonym to "muffing", or simply failing make the play!! If F5 did add a new impetus, not simply redirect the existing force, then I can agree with you, Mike. But simply changing the direction (where booting is muffing) is deflecting, not a new impetus, and then I would still believe that 8.5-I(2) is the definitive citation, and that 8.5-I(4) and 8.8-F are subsequent and incidental action, and only supportive of clarifying that the runner is not out.

We could both be right based on the original post, and HTBT.

And I'm having trouble believing that it's going to matter to your call which you choose. Even a stealing runner isn't going to get to second by the time a hard hit ball at F5 can be misplayed.
________
Harmed By Wellbutrin

[BretMan]

Originally Posted by youngump

And I'm having trouble believing that it's going to matter to your call which you choose. Even a stealing runner isn't going to get to second by the time a hard hit ball at F5 can be misplayed.

Yes, an award from either "time of pitch" or "time of throw/kick/deflection" might very well result in the same base.

Note that on this play it wasn't a "hard hit ball", it was a "slow roller". That at least opens up the possibility that a runner had advanced a base before the ball was touched. And that means an umpire may have to make a distinction between the two.

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by youngump

And I'm having trouble believing that it's going to matter to your call which you choose. Even a stealing runner isn't going to get to second by the time a hard hit ball at F5 can be misplayed.

Probably not, but still possible. As such, we have to make sure we're consistent with our terminology and the application of the rules. Otherwise... We're just NSA.

[txtrooper]

After reading everything here, I am leaning toward 8.5.I.4.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

Understand that application, but as I read the play (HTBT), it doesn't read that the fielder provided a new impetus. The act of "booting" the ball, to me, is not a new impetus, it simply redirects the batted ball, making it a deflected ball, 8.45-I(4). It reads to me that if there was a new impetus at all, it was the runner inadvertantly tripping and kicking the ball. The only rule applying to that is 8.5-I(4), and that rule also awards bases at the time of the pitch.

8.5.I.4 also states that the ball pass an infielder excluding the pitcher. That did not happen here.

HTBT, or an issue of understanding what the writer meant and judged to have happen. There are actually two differing definitions of "booting", so we don't know what the writer actually meant. It can mean actually "kicking", but in sports slang (both football and baseball), it is a synonym to "muffing", or simply failing make the play!! If F5 did add a new impetus, not simply redirect the existing force, then I can agree with you, Mike. But simply changing the direction (where booting is muffing) is deflecting, not a new impetus, and then I would still believe that 8.5-I(2) is the definitive citation, and that 8.5-I(4) and 8.8-F are subsequent and incidental action, and only supportive of clarifying that the runner is not out.

We could both be right based on the original post, and HTBT.

No argument about HTBT, but taking the info provided ("slow roller" being "booted off the glove" and then rolls toward the runner) certainly doesn't sound like it was the batter provided the impetus.

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

8.5.I.4 also states that the ball pass an infielder excluding the pitcher. That did not happen here.

It did not pass him, but it was certainly booted by him. Good 'nuff for me.

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

No argument about HTBT, but taking the info provided ("slow roller" being "booted off the glove" and then rolls toward the runner) certainly doesn't sound like it was the batter provided the impetus.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

8.5.I.4 also states that the ball pass an infielder excluding the pitcher. That did not happen here..\

You have often opined that the book cannot cover EVERYTHING (although the NCAA certainly tries). IMO, once booted, that same exception should apply (seems like Dave agrees), since the intent of the stated exception seems to be to not protect runners if interference might still be possible (which matches this definition), which isn't the case in this new case play.

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

No argument about HTBT, but taking the info provided ("slow roller" being "booted off the glove" and then rolls toward the runner) certainly doesn't sound like it was the batter provided the impetus.

Seems logical. By the same token, also seems like booting (if meaning muffing, not kicking) didn't do it, either. Leaves the accidental/incidental actions of the (protected without intent) runner to have done it. Without any rule or penalty applied to the runner in this case, I am more prone to going back to the batter than the fielder, since it seems more offense affiliated.

Important side note!! For all those newer to this interaction, I want to make clear that Mike and I are friends and colleagues that enjoy these discussions on a purely academic level. Do not take our discussions as anything more than that. We most often agree, with very similar training; when we disagree, it is to advance the discussion, not to denigrate anything the other has stated.

[BretMan]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

You have often opined that the book cannot cover EVERYTHING (although the NCAA certainly tries). IMO, once booted, that same exception should apply (seems like Dave agrees), since the intent of the stated exception seems to be to not protect runners if interference might still be possible (which matches this definition), which isn't the case in this new case play.

That kind of sums up my thoughts on why 8-5-I(4) is written the way it is. It seems like they threw in that "after the ball has passed a fielder" qualifier to distinguish between a batted ball that touches a runner and remains (for the moment) live (which can result in a base award if the ball subsequently goes out of play) from one that touches the runner and becomes immediately dead (where no base award would be possible).

The only problem is that there is another circumstance, unstated in the rule, where a batted ball can touch a runner and not be immediately dead- a deflected batted ball.

I'm looking at this from three possible angles:

1) Fair batted ball deflects off a fielder with such force that it goes out of play under it's own power: Apply rule 8-5-I(2). Two base award from the time of the pitch.

2) Fair batted ball deflects off a fielder, not hard enough to go out of play under it's own power, then while trying to secure the ball the fielder boots/kicks/bobbles it and that second impetus causes it to go out of play when it would not have otherwise: Apply ASA Rule Clarification from July 2009. Two base award from the time of the boot/kick/bobble (same as if it was a throw that went out of play).

3) Fair batted ball deflects off a fielder, not hard enough to go out of play under it's own power, then the ball makes contact with the runner (not interference or a dead ball) and the contact by the runner provides the impetus to send the ball out of play: Apply rule...???

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

You have often opined that the book cannot cover EVERYTHING (although the NCAA certainly tries). IMO, once booted, that same exception should apply (seems like Dave agrees), since the intent of the stated exception seems to be to not protect runners if interference might still be possible (which matches this definition), which isn't the case in this new case play.

Not my rule, just pointed it out because it is there and we cannot sit on it. It is there as a reference as it was an exception that allows the ball to stay live when hitting a runner or umpire and it was raised as a reason to award from the TOP.

If y'all remember, I tried to get a portion of this rule changed a couple years ago, but will address this in another thread.

Seems logical. By the same token, also seems like booting (if meaning muffing, not kicking) didn't do it, either. Leaves the accidental/incidental actions of the (protected without intent) runner to have done it. Without any rule or penalty applied to the runner in this case, I am more prone to going back to the batter than the fielder, since it seems more offense affiliated.

Also, not my clarification. Prior to July 2009, I would have considered any ball off the bat a "batted ball" until someone took control of it in some manner.

In this case, just because the ball went off the offense should be irrelevant, unless you want to play dodge ball. I just don't see how the runner can be brought into the case. While in most cases using the deflection off the runner would benefit the offense, I think that is one more situation that umpires would be quite inconsistant in "guessing", "justifying" and applying equally across the board. One of the reasons ASA moved away from the 1 & 1, one award for the IF, another from the OF, etc. to a standard 2 from the time of the release of the throw was to avoid inconsistency. Whether an umpire thinks it is fair or not, enforcing the rule at hand is the only thing that keeps us out of trouble. If the team wants to protest, no problem. That is why the system allows for it and we have a national staff.

Important side note!! For all those newer to this interaction, I want to make clear that Mike and I are friends and colleagues that enjoy these discussions on a purely academic level. Do not take our discussions as anything more than that. We most often agree, with very similar training; when we disagree, it is to advance the discussion, not to denigrate anything the other has stated.

Now, if we can just get Steve to drink some real beer. BTW, if you know anyone who has an empty bed in Shreveport, I'm looking.

[MD Longhorn]

It seems to me that a fielder kicking the ball and a fielder misplaying (or booting) a ball are two completely different things. I read the rule clarification to include some intent. Throwing is a purposeful action by a fielder. To extend TOT logic to a situation, it would seem to me that whatever the fielder did must also be a purposeful action. I take "kicking" in this clarification to be purposeful.

In the sitch posted, I cannot see the difference between a misplayed deflection and the sitch posted. This is simply a deflection. The runner interacting with the ball is not illegal in this case, and is again a deflection. We simply have a batted fair ball deflected out of play. 2 bases TOP.

(PS - not sure why INT was ever discussed at all at the top of this thread. And those stating "I have nothing" missed the fact that you have to have SOMETHING, as the ball has gone out of play!)

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

It seems to me that a fielder kicking the ball and a fielder misplaying (or booting) a ball are two completely different things. I read the rule clarification to include some intent. Throwing is a purposeful action by a fielder. To extend TOT logic to a situation, it would seem to me that whatever the fielder did must also be a purposeful action. I take "kicking" in this clarification to be purposeful.

I didn't read any intent in the kicking of the ball as that would be a different rule application (8.5.K). I also do not believe you can separate the "kick" from a throw since the clarification specifically states that the kick is to be treated the same as if the fielder threw the ball.

In the sitch posted, I cannot see the difference between a misplayed deflection and the sitch posted. This is simply a deflection. The runner interacting with the ball is not illegal in this case, and is again a deflection. We simply have a batted fair ball deflected out of play. 2 bases TOP.

Yet, the clarification says it is TOT. I don't see a problem selling either, but firmly believe the rule and clarification alleviates

[youngump]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

(PS - not sure why INT was ever discussed at all at the top of this thread. And those stating "I have nothing" missed the fact that you have to have SOMETHING, as the ball has gone out of play!)

The OP has a typo that reads shout for shoot making it seem that instead of the ball going out of play the runner tried to confuse the defense.
________
Wiki Vaporizer

[MD Longhorn]

Well, it would be nice if there was a definition of kicking... but since there is not, I would ask you if a ball striking a fielder in the knee would qualify as fitting into this clarification. I don't think it would. Striking the fielder in the foot should be no different thatn it striking him anywhere else. Again, with the clarification lumping "kicking" in with throwing, I have to assume they intended kicking to be a purposeful act. When you kick a soccer ball or football - you do so on purpose. When a ball happens to strike a foot, it's not a kick. I know - those sports are not softball ... but the logic is sound.

The clarification does not apply in this case, to my mind. 2 bases TOP.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Well, it would be nice if there was a definition of kicking... but since there is not, I would ask you if a ball striking a fielder in the knee would qualify as fitting into this clarification. I don't think it would. Striking the fielder in the foot should be no different thatn it striking him anywhere else. Again, with the clarification lumping "kicking" in with throwing, I have to assume they intended kicking to be a purposeful act. When you kick a soccer ball or football - you do so on purpose. When a ball happens to strike a foot, it's not a kick. I know - those sports are not softball ... but the logic is sound.

The clarification does not apply in this case, to my mind. 2 bases TOP.

Please, give me a break. Maybe we need a definition for "is".

The manner in which the ball left the field of play is relevant, the method used is not. I don't care if it was kicked with a foot, knee, bumped with an elbow, shoulder or hip or headed, if the defense MISPLAYED the ball and provided the impetus which placed it into position to leave playable territory, I'm going with the clarification until told otherwise.

As I stated before, not my clarification, but as noted in another thread, you cannot worry about fairness and obviously, it isn't the umpires' rules or clarifications