Batter-Runner on uncaught 3rd strike and loose ball

[PandaBear]

I had an interesting situation I can't recall coming up any time in my 14 years of umpiring.

Batter strikes out with 1st base unoccupied, so it is a legal situation to advance to first. Pitch was a big breaking ball sinking fast, and the catcher blocked the ball, deflecting it back toward the field before eventually picking it up. There was a runner on 3rd hard faking to break for home, so the catcher didn't throw to 1st for the put-out.

Defensive coach contends that the ball hit the batter-runner after being blocked back forward by the catcher, and wanted the batter-runner declared out. I didn't observe that it did, and after consulting with my partner, determined that he didn't have ball contact with the bat or batter at any time either, so the ruling was we had nothing but a live ball.

However, the ball could have contacted the batter-runner, and absent an obvious intentional act (batter runner picks up the ball and throws it into the outfield, or kicks it into the stands), I realized I wasn't sure what the correct ruling would be.

After consulting several rule books, softball and baseball (ASA, Fed, LL), I've not found clarification. We don't have a batted, pitched, or thrown ball, merely a live ball bouncing and rolling around in live ball territory that coincidentally contacts a runner/batter runner. As such, I believe it is merely a "play on" situation.

Have I missed something somewhere?

[RKBUmp]

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.

[PandaBear]

as to whether the batter-runner actually interfered with the ball or the play.

The case book cites kicking, but caroming off the side of the leg (for example) I wouldn't consider "kicking".

If the ball is further deflected away from the catcher, I agree that would interfere with the catcher making the play. But contact could actually even benefit the defense, by keeping the ball from rolling even further away.

[MD Longhorn]

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.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

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.

Just out of curiosity, does this also apply to when the BR takes off for first, and she drops her bat and either:
- hits the ball in either fair or foul territory?
- trips up the catcher?

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?

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Manny A

- hits the ball in either fair or foul territory?

Different rule, but absolutely yes.

- trips up the catcher?

No. This is one of the few exceptions to the "there are no train wrecks in softball" rule of thumb.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Manny A

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?

Attempted a rule change a couple years ago making this an intentional violation, but was overwhelmingly dismissed. I am referring to the BR interfering with a U3K, not a bat hitting the ball a 2nd time.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Different rule, but absolutely yes.

What do you mean by different rule? I had in my mind somewhere mapped this as similar to hitting the ball a second time with the bat, but as it's the first time, I guess that wouldn't apply. So we just have the regular interference rules, no?

[BretMan]

I'd like to see this rule be similar to when a baserunner gets hit with a deflected batted ball. When that happens the runner gets a break if contact with the ball was unavoidable.

Why should the defense get a free out, plus halt the advancement of any other runners, just because they couldnt catch the ball and it happened to deflect into the runner or her path?

[PandaBear]

The original question came out of this scenario, where a coach was looking for an out that the catcher had already let get away.

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by RKBUmp

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.

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.



There is also a difference between the caseplay, and the situation that is presented in the original post. The caseplay says the ball bounced in front of home plate and was kicked. The ball bouncing off the batter in the batters box is not the same as the player kicking the ball.

Interference would not be called on a situation in which a pitched ball (called a ball or strike) bounces off the catchers equipment and then hits the batter.


Personally in the stuation presented I think the 7-4-4 caseplay actually is more accurate.

[HugoTafurst]

[QUOTE=chapmaja;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.
(snip)QUOTE]

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.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

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.

This specific case play doesn't address the entirety of rule 8-2-6, only the part about the dropped third. So I'm not sure why you're bringing this up.

[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.

[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.