Offense opens the gate

[AtlUmpSteve]

I'm a little surprised by some of these responses.

First, the recent and repetitive rule changes to eliminate intent as a factor, and to rule on the action itself; yet several here are basing their response on a perceived lack of intent.

Second, the most comparable rule relating to an inappropriate action by an offensive player would certainly be a blocked ball by offensive equipment; again, intent is disregarded, has no bearing on the outcome, the only decision is interference (runner closest to home is out, all other runners return to last base touched), or simply a blocked ball/dead ball, and all runners return to last base touched.

You simply cannot allow the offense to benefit from an illegal and/or inappropriate act that denies the defense a fair opportunity to make a play. Any other consideration is missing the boat.

[JefferMC]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

You simply cannot allow the offense to benefit from an illegal and/or inappropriate act that denies the defense a fair opportunity to make a play. Any other consideration is missing the boat.

Okay... so what would you do, and what rule do you pull out of the book on appeal?

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

I'm a little surprised by some of these responses.

First, the recent and repetitive rule changes to eliminate intent as a factor, and to rule on the action itself; yet several here are basing their response on a perceived lack of intent.

Second, the most comparable rule relating to an inappropriate action by an offensive player would certainly be a blocked ball by offensive equipment; again, intent is disregarded, has no bearing on the outcome, the only decision is interference (runner closest to home is out, all other runners return to last base touched), or simply a blocked ball/dead ball, and all runners return to last base touched.

^^^^^^
This is my thought as well, but I'm hard-pressed to define the gate as "offensive equipment." The gate, in my opinion, belongs to the field, even though the particular is under the control of the offense.

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

You simply cannot allow the offense to benefit from an illegal and/or inappropriate act that denies the defense a fair opportunity to make a play. Any other consideration is missing the boat.

I wholeheartedly agree that the offense should not be allowed to benefit from unfairly and illegally creating a dead ball situation. The reason I mentioned it deflecting off the gate first is because I view this to be a thrown ball that is "touched, stopped or handled by a person not engaged in the game," which is the crux of the definition of a blocked ball.

Where it starts to become grey is when the correct on-deck batter (in this sitch, B4) commits such an act, since they are allowed to be out on the field. However, I think the above definition of a blocked ball still applies, as they are not officially engaged in the game, and their actions, indirect as they may be, still exert influence upon the ball's path.

Where it becomes even more grey is if it doesn't touch the gate at all. There's no real "handling," but I still think the blocked ball rules apply.

Thoughts?

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by NCASAUmp

I wholeheartedly agree that the offense should not be allowed to benefit from unfairly and illegally creating a dead ball situation.

Don't get me wrong ... I completely understand the DESIRE to not let offense benefit from what happened here. And I agree with "unfairly" in this sentence quoted. But "illegally"? By what rule?

[Skahtboi]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

But "illegally"? By what rule?

This is where I am stuck.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

I'm a little surprised by some of these responses.

You simply cannot allow the offense to benefit from an illegal and/or inappropriate act that denies the defense a fair opportunity to make a play. Any other consideration is missing the boat.

I hear you... but I see no rule even remotely related to opening a fence to let it go out of play. Blocked? Equipment? This is an overthrow that rolled into DBT... how do we put the blocked ball rules into this scenario? If I do not allow the offense to benefit from the OP, what rule do I use to support my case when it's protested?

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

I hear you... but I see no rule even remotely related to opening a fence to let it go out of play. Blocked? Equipment? This is an overthrow that rolled into DBT... how do we put the blocked ball rules into this scenario? If I do not allow the offense to benefit from the OP, what rule do I use to support my case when it's protested?

Does the definition of a blocked ball that I provided earlier not already handle this?

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by NCASAUmp

Does the definition of a blocked ball that I provided earlier not already handle this?

Even if I want to, I can't see how. The fence, while touched or moved by the offense, is under no definition "equipment".

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Even if I want to, I can't see how. The fence, while touched or moved by the offense, is under no definition "equipment".

So this is not a ball that is "touched, stopped or handled by a person not engaged in the game?"

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by NCASAUmp

So this is not a ball that is "touched, stopped or handled by a person not engaged in the game?"

No ... it's a ball touched by a gate.

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

No ... it's a ball touched by a gate.

...that was under the control of an offensive player.