Batter-Runner on uncaught 3rd strike and loose ball

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

There is a difference between the case play, and the situation described above, which I would use to not call the batter runner out. In the caseplay, the ball has bounced in front of the plate and is then contacted by the batter-runner who is advancing towards first base on the dropped third strike. Intentional or not, the batter contacted the ball.

Rule 7-4-4. The batter interferes with the catchers fielding or throwing of the ball by stepping out of the batters box, making any movement which hinders action at home plate after the pitch reaches the catcher or the catchers attempt to play on a runner.............

The casebook play would also back this up. 7-4-4 Situation A.

With less than 2 outs, R1 on second and B2 at the plate, R1 attempts to steal third. In the process B2 does not swing, or does swing and a) makes no attempt to get out of the way of the catcher throwing to third, or b) is unable to make an attempt to get out of the way of the runner throwing to third. As a result, F2 is unable to make a play on the runner. Ruling: B2 is not guilty of interference in a or b. B2 is entitled to her position in the batters box and is not subject to interference uness she moves or re-establishes her position after F2 has recieved the pitch, which then prohibits F2 from attempting to make a play on a runner. Failing to move so a runner can make a throw is not batter interference.

The situation is different, but the key wording is "B2 is entitled to her position in the batters box and it not guilty of interference unless she moves or re-establishes her position after F2 recieved the pitch. The ball bouncing off F2 and hitting F1, who is or is not swinging and has not changed her position is not interference.

Based on these several rules, the batter who has not moved or re-established position when she is hit my a pitched ball that bounces away from a catcher has done nothing wrong.

Once she moves or re-establishes a position, then she contacts the ball (as in the casebook play mentioned above), then she has committed interference and should be called out, even if the contact was not intentional.


I can't give the defense the benefit of this play when they made the mistake of having a pitched ball that bounced off the catch and hit a batter in the box who has done nothing to change her position. Swinging at a pitch is not changing her position, as it is a natural act of the batter, so even if she swings and misses, and it bounces off the catcher and hits the batter who is finishing the swing, I have nothing.

One thing we all need to consider if the timing of a situation like this. This is going to happen bang bang. If the dropped third strike bounces off the catcher and hits the batter it is most likely going to be a very fast action, and therefore fall under 7-4-4 as opposed to te above mentioned rule.

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.