Originally Posted by MD Longhorn (Post 892765)

Here's what you're looking for...

Did the catcher have a play on the runner (or the batter-runner for that matter), and then, after the ball contacted or was contacted by the batter-runner, no longer have a play on the runner (or BR)?

If yes - it's INT. Again, intent not required, but a legitimate play on a runner IS required.

Originally Posted by Manny A (Post 892766)

- hits the ball in either fair or foul territory?

Originally Posted by Manny A (Post 892766)

It seems to me the wording in the rule that says "interferes with a dropped third strike" is so open-ended, we basically give the catcher all the leeway imaginable to make the play. Is that really the intent?

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn (Post 892781)

Different rule, but absolutely yes.

Originally Posted by RKBUmp (Post 892738)

FED 8-2-6 The batter runner interferes with a fielder attemtping to make an initial play, interferes with a fielder attempting to throw the ball, intentionally interfers with a thrown ball while out of the batters box, makes contact with a fair bated ball before reaching first base, or interferes with a dropped thrid stirke.

FED case play 8-2-6 B3 has a count of 3-2 with no runners on base and two outs. On the next pitch B3 swing and misses. The ball bouinces off F2's shin guard and lands in front of home plate. As F2 moves out to field the ball, (a) B runs into her, knocking her down or (b) B3 unintentionally kicks the ball. Ruling: In both (a) and (b) , interference; the umpire calls "dead ball" and rules the batter runner out.

ASA 8-2-F-6 When the batter runner interferes with: a dropped third strike.

If the ball only made incedental contact and did not affect the play, I would say you have nothing. But, intent is not required, if the batter runner makes contact with the dropped third strike and interferes, they are out.

Originally Posted by chapmaja (Post 893550)

I disagree with the FED Case play.

The rule specifically says intitial play. The defintition of initial play 2-47-3 clearly states an initial play on a FAIR BATTER BALL.

Originally Posted by chapmaja (Post 893644)

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.

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA (Post 893683)

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.

Originally Posted by chapmaja (Post 893701)

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

Originally Posted by chapmaja (Post 893701)

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

Originally Posted by Manny A (Post 893714)

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.

Originally Posted by chapmaja (Post 893799)

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.

Originally Posted by chapmaja (Post 893799)

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)...

Originally Posted by Manny A (Post 893833)

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.

Originally Posted by chapmaja (Post 893872)

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.

Originally Posted by chapmaja (Post 893872)

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.

Originally Posted by chapmaja (Post 893872)

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.

Originally Posted by Andy (Post 893907)

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.

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA (Post 893923)

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? :cool:

Originally Posted by chapmaja (Post 893872)

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.

Originally Posted by UmpireErnie (Post 893988)

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.