This is a different scenario than the one in the OP. Here, the ball deflects off a fielder. This is clearly covered by 8-5I(2). In essence, the ball's momentum is what caused it to go out of play. The fielder just happened to redirect that momentum.

That's not what happened in the OP play. There, the ball's momentum would not have caused it to go into DBT. It was the fielder's action that provided it the impetus to leave the field. You can't use 8-5I(2) here.

Again, that's not what happened in the OP. So you can't rule it a straight-up ground rule double or, more appropriately said, a two-base award from time-of-pitch.

If we can't use 8-5I(2), which rule do we use? The problem is, there is no specific rule that covers this. That's why ASA came out with the rule clarification that Irishmafia provided. And they cited 8-5G as the rule that most closely applies to this situation. Since 8-5G only applies to thrown balls, the clarification specifically tells us that a ball unintentionally kicked into DBT is treated the same as a throw.

So, the correct ruling for the OP is to award all runners two bases from when the fielder unintentionally kicked the ball under the fence.

Yeah, it kinda makes 8-5K moot. But on a thrown ball into DBT, the ruling is the same whether it is intentional or not. The real reason behind 8-5K is to provide a more severe penalty for situations where a one-base award would apply if done unintentionally, such as when a fielder catches a fly ball near a DBT boundary and then goes beyond that boundary, or when a catcher chases down an errant pitch and then sends it into the dugout.

But when it comes to batted balls, 8-5G is the best rule, per the ASA clarification, to use should a fielder provide the momentum to send the ball into DBT when the ball's momentum wouldn't have caused it to go out.

As I mentioned, there is no rule that specifically covers this. The July 2009 ASA Rule Clarification tells us to use 8-5G. Unless something has since come out that supercedes that clarification, that's what we have to go with.

So I guess I was right after all.
Thanks for the clarification.

I wasn't there and didn't see the play, I read the OP and thought, batted ball deflected by fielder into dead ball territory. Two bases from time of pitch.

The original poster has changed and added to the scenario since that point and doesn't seem top grasp the concept of "intentional" as related to judging player actions.

And remember....his team lost the game...all because of this call.....

I can't imagine anyone trying to intentionaly kick a ball under a fence in that or any scenario.

I find it amazing that after the discussion and evidence presented, there is still argument.

Just in the way of comparison with other rule sets, and this example has some holes in it also....

If the play as described in the OP occurred in an NCAA game, the ruling would fall under 9.9 Fair Batted Blocked Ball.

The rule contains no mention of an intentional/unintentional act of the part of the fielder, it only says "when it deflects," and then the umpires would essentially have to combine two sections of the rule to apply the correct ruling.

9.9 Fair Batted Blocked Ball
A fair batted ball becomes blocked:

9.9.3 When it bounces over, wedges under, or passes through a fence or any designated boundary on the field........
9.9.4 When it deflects off of a defensive player and crosses into dead ball territory.......

EFFECT-(9.9.2 to 9.9.4)-The ball is dead. The batter is awarded second base and credited with a two-base hit (double). Each runner is awarded two bases from the base legally occupied at the time of the pitch.

That is not a ground rule. It is a book rule.
And it depends whether you feel it was intentional or not. If not intentional, 2 bases for all from time of pitch. If intentional, then 2 bases from time of intentional "kick".

Except that the book calls it a ground rule! ;)

Agreed. As the line goes in a memorable movie, "You're KILLING me, Smalls!"

Colleagues, are you just blowing off the ASA Rule Clarification that OKC provided in July 2009 and Irish quoted?! They offered a case play that unequivocally tells us that the ruling is to award two bases from the time of the kick, not the time of the pitch.

This is NOT a deflected ball. A deflected ball is one that has significant momentum that, after it ricochets off a fielder, umpire, runner, base, whatever, the ball's redirected momentum takes it into DBT. It's pretty easy to determine when a ball has deflected off something, and not pushed or kicked or thrown out of play.

Think of the bat-hits-ball versus the ball-hits-bat a second time scenario. When a moving bat hits the ball, it's ruled one way. When the ball hits a stationary bat, it's another ruling. A deflected ball versus a ball provided added impetus is similar.

Regardless how you want to define a ball that has been deflected, the ruling for the OP is clear, at least in ASA. They provided it to us via a case play. Just because the ruling results in the same two-base award as at TOP is immaterial. If that we're how OKC wanted it ruled, they would never had said two bases from the TOK, and they would not have used 8-5G as the applicable rule.

Which fits with my OQ about a ball played by a fielder.

I didn't word that very well ..... I know the rule now thanks to you!! I just had a problem with that play even being possible in the 1st place. :D

Great thread!

" Each runner would be awarded two bases from the time the ball left F7’s foot."

In spite of what they tell you, players have a tendency to do what many think to be impossible, and I'm not talking about their play skills