Play from Iraq

[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.