Batter-Runner on uncaught 3rd strike and loose ball

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

This thread has become somewhat convoluted. Let's assume you are still on point with the subject line, U3K. How can 7-4-4 apply when there is no batter.

This was in regards the initial topic of the dropped third strike hitting the catcher than bouncing back off the batter.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

This was in regards the initial topic of the dropped third strike hitting the catcher than bouncing back off the batter.

If it is a dropped third strike, there is no batter.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

This was in regards the initial topic of the dropped third strike hitting the catcher than bouncing back off the batter.

You're missing Irish's point.

You don't have a batter on an uncaught third strike. By rule, you now have a batter-runner. That's why you cannot use rule 7 to make your point, because rule 8 applies to batter-runners. There is nothing in rule 7-4-4 that applies to batter-runners.

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by Manny A

You're missing Irish's point.

You don't have a batter on an uncaught third strike. By rule, you now have a batter-runner. That's why you cannot use rule 7 to make your point, because rule 8 applies to batter-runners. There is nothing in rule 7-4-4 that applies to batter-runners.

I will just end my participation in this discussion with this. There is not way I am calling interfence on a batter (or batter runner if you wish), when the ball immediately bounces off the catcher and the batter (or batter runner), has had no opportunity to avoid the ball bouncing back and hitting her.

As I said above, I am not penalizing the offence because the defense can't stop a pitched ball that happens to be stopped that immediately bounces off the catcher and hit the batters leg who has done nothing to alter their position from the natural position as a batter.

We need to be realistic with these rules. This is not difference than interference by a retired runner being applied. I'm not penalizing a retired runner for interference unless there has been some reason to know that have been retired. As an example, a situation where there is one out, a runner on second base and a 2 strike count. A pitch that is low and may or may not have been caught might confuse a batter. I will not penalize the batter-runner for taking steps towards first base if they aren't sure it has been caught or not. Once I announce it was caught, and then if they keep running and draw a throw, I will penalize them (i think this is a casebook play).

I have a big problem with penalizing someone who due to the circumstances of the play (as with the ball bouncing immediately off the catchers skingaurds and the batters leg ) can't avoid the "interference" Once they have knowledge or the play and then they interfere ding them.

We need to umpire based on the rules and common sense, because sometimes the rules and commons sense don't agree.

[UmpireErnie]

Champaja

I agree the mere fact that an U3K bounces off F2s shin guards and then off the BRs leg should not earn the defense an out. They failed to catch the ball, so now they have to make a play on the BR.

However, if some action by the BR takes away the opportunity for the defense to make that play you have to apply INT even if you think it was unintentional.

Example..the ball bounces off F2s shin guard into BRs legs..nothing so far..but BR (intentionally or unintentionally; doesn't matter) then kicks the ball away from F2 and runs to 1B. If in the umpire's judgment the defense lost the opportunity to make the play on the BR or another runner then INT would apply. Dead ball, BR out, runners return to last base occupied at time of INT which in this case would be the base at the time of the pitch.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

I will just end my participation in this discussion with this. There is not way I am calling interfence on a batter (or batter runner if you wish), when the ball immediately bounces off the catcher and the batter (or batter runner), has had no opportunity to avoid the ball bouncing back and hitting her.

As I said above, I am not penalizing the offence because the defense can't stop a pitched ball that happens to be stopped that immediately bounces off the catcher and hit the batters leg who has done nothing to alter their position from the natural position as a batter.

We need to be realistic with these rules. This is not difference than interference by a retired runner being applied. I'm not penalizing a retired runner for interference unless there has been some reason to know that have been retired. As an example, a situation where there is one out, a runner on second base and a 2 strike count. A pitch that is low and may or may not have been caught might confuse a batter. I will not penalize the batter-runner for taking steps towards first base if they aren't sure it has been caught or not. Once I announce it was caught, and then if they keep running and draw a throw, I will penalize them (i think this is a casebook play).

I have a big problem with penalizing someone who due to the circumstances of the play (as with the ball bouncing immediately off the catchers skingaurds and the batters leg ) can't avoid the "interference" Once they have knowledge or the play and then they interfere ding them.

We need to umpire based on the rules and common sense, because sometimes the rules and commons sense don't agree.

You are being told the rules, though if you are an umpire should already know them, and you are refusing to abide by them. You don't want to penalize the offense for the defense not catching the ball? How about we penalize the offense for failing to hit the damn thing?

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

I will just end my participation in this discussion with this. There is not way I am calling interfence on a batter (or batter runner if you wish)...

It's not as I wish. It's the rule. That's the point we're trying to get across to you. Once again, you cannot use 7-4-4 in this particular case to make your ruling, because it's not appropriate.

You keep clouding the issue by arguing you will not call interference. Fine. But if you're going to use a rule to back up your argument, use the right rule. 7-4-4 is not the right rule.

The right rule is 8-2-6. It says a batter-runner is out when she interferes with an uncaught third strike. It says nothing about the defense's failure to catch the pitch. It says nothing about where the ball ends up. It says nothing about what the batter-runner does (or fails to do). And it says nothing about intent. All you have to go with is the definition of interference. If the batter-runner hinders the catcher from making a play, either on the batter-runner or another runner, after the catcher fails to catch the third strike, then you must rule the batter-runner out.

Chances are that there won't be any hindrance here since the ball simply bounced off the batter-runner's leg. More than likely, the ball stays close by so that the catcher can pick it up and make the play. That's why this situation is different than the case book scenario where the batter-runner kicks the ball away, preventing the catcher from making any play.

So you could rule there is no interference. That's your judgment. And you would use 8-2-6 to make your point. You would not use 7-4-4.

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by Manny A

It's not as I wish. It's the rule. That's the point we're trying to get across to you. Once again, you cannot use 7-4-4 in this particular case to make your ruling, because it's not appropriate.

You keep clouding the issue by arguing you will not call interference. Fine. But if you're going to use a rule to back up your argument, use the right rule. 7-4-4 is not the right rule.

The right rule is 8-2-6. It says a batter-runner is out when she interferes with an uncaught third strike. It says nothing about the defense's failure to catch the pitch. It says nothing about where the ball ends up. It says nothing about what the batter-runner does (or fails to do). And it says nothing about intent. All you have to go with is the definition of interference. If the batter-runner hinders the catcher from making a play, either on the batter-runner or another runner, after the catcher fails to catch the third strike, then you must rule the batter-runner out.

Chances are that there won't be any hindrance here since the ball simply bounced off the batter-runner's leg. More than likely, the ball stays close by so that the catcher can pick it up and make the play. That's why this situation is different than the case book scenario where the batter-runner kicks the ball away, preventing the catcher from making any play.

So you could rule there is no interference. That's your judgment. And you would use 8-2-6 to make your point. You would not use 7-4-4.

Ok, I lied, I will comment again.

Finally, I think we are on the same page. Personally to me, it still doesn't matter how far away the ball bounces. The defense has caused this situation by failing to catch the pitch. Unless the offense does something to actually interfere, I will not call anything.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

Ok, I lied, I will comment again.

Finally, I think we are on the same page. Personally to me, it still doesn't matter how far away the ball bounces. The defense has caused this situation by failing to catch the pitch. Unless the offense does something to actually interfere, I will not call anything.

Then personally, to you, enjoy your Calvinball matches.

You're being told what the correct ruling here is - these are not opinions that one umpire should choose to believe and others not. These are established by-the-rulebook rulings. If you refuse to listen, or intentionally choose to ignore those correct rulings and do whatever the hell you like, you do the entire profession a disservice.

You don't get to decide what is and is not fair - that is already established for you in the rulebook. You don't get to decide that in this situation you want to penalize the defense for failing to catch the pitch rather than penalizing the offense for failing to hit it. It's NOT YOUR DECISION.

Listen, learn and get better - that's what this forum is for.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

Ok, I lied, I will comment again.

Finally, I think we are on the same page. Personally to me, it still doesn't matter how far away the ball bounces.

Nope, we're not on the same page...

[Andy]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

Ok, I lied, I will comment again.

Finally, I think we are on the same page. Personally to me, it still doesn't matter how far away the ball bounces. The defense has caused this situation by failing to catch the pitch. Unless the offense does something to actually interfere, I will not call anything.

The rule sucks for all of the reasons you have mentioned. But it is the rule.
I had to call this Friday night in a state tournament semi-final game.

I also had to talk to the coach who gave me all the reasons that it shouldn't be interference...it wasn't intentional, the ball hit the B/R, she was only running to first, etc, etc.....

Until the rule is changed, we MUST call it the way it is worded, no matter our personal opinion.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by Andy

The rule sucks for all of the reasons you have mentioned. But it is the rule.
I had to call this Friday night in a state tournament semi-final game.

I also had to talk to the coach who gave me all the reasons that it shouldn't be interference...it wasn't intentional, the ball hit the B/R, she was only running to first, etc, etc.....

Until the rule is changed, we MUST call it the way it is worded, no matter our personal opinion.

FWIW, there are other rule sets (primarily in baseball) where BRs are not always held accountable for unintentionally contacting an uncaught third strike on their way to first base. I believe under pro rules (OBR), the BR is only guilty if he clearly had an opportunity to avoid the ball (e.g., the ball ended up ten feet up the first base line).

Unfortunately, that's not the case in softball.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Ooohh....let's see if we can pry another post.

If you have a problem with this rule, how do you feel about the NFHS interpretation on the application of the 3' lane on a BR who has been awarded 1B via a base on balls?

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Ooohh....let's see if we can pry another post.

If you have a problem with this rule, how do you feel about the NFHS interpretation on the application of the 3' lane on a BR who has been awarded 1B via a base on balls?

AAAGGGGHHHH ~!!!!! (the post, not the rule )

[UmpireErnie]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

Ok, I lied, I will comment again.

Finally, I think we are on the same page. Personally to me, it still doesn't matter how far away the ball bounces. The defense has caused this situation by failing to catch the pitch. Unless the offense does something to actually interfere, I will not call anything.

Exactly the main point most of us here have been trying to make.. U3K bounces off F2 the the BRs leg I am probably calling nothing and F2 better go get the ball and make the play. But if the BR kicks the ball, even unintentionally i.e. the ball bounces off F2 and into BRs path and she kicks it.. now she has done something, taken action that no matter how inadvertent has taken away the opportunity for F2 to make a play. This is what interference is all about.