interference with batted ball

[Tap]

Originally posted by Dakota

(ASA) If intentional & the fielder had an opportunity to make an out, the runner is out (Rule 8-7J.5). If unintentional, it is live ball, play on.

(Answer corrected with edit - I misread greymule's post; I missed the un in front of intentionally)

[Edited by Dakota on Aug 13th, 2003 at 01:18 PM]

I'm not sure if this is in writing anywhere, but at an ASA clinic I recall hearing a rough "one step" rule, meaning even if unintentional, the runner will be out if, say, F4 bobbles and is about to pick the ball up and the runner accidentally runs into F4. The ball was with within a step, so give the fielder the benefit of the doubt. But if the ball squirts far away after F4 bobbles, then the runner will not be called out for accidentally contacting F4. Again, I just recall hearing this rough rule of thumb--not sure if I am recalling correctly. Perhaps if the ball is that close, intentional interference by the runner is inferred, as the runner could have gone around the fielder and avoided contact.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by Tap


I'm not sure if this is in writing anywhere, but at an ASA clinic I recall hearing a rough "one step" rule, meaning even if unintentional, the runner will be out if, say, F4 bobbles and is about to pick the ball up and the runner accidentally runs into F4. The ball was with within a step, so give the fielder the benefit of the doubt. But if the ball squirts far away after F4 bobbles, then the runner will not be called out for accidentally contacting F4. Again, I just recall hearing this rough rule of thumb--not sure if I am recalling correctly. Perhaps if the ball is that close, intentional interference by the runner is inferred, as the runner could have gone around the fielder and avoided contact.

ASA Case Book Play 8.9.3

R1 on 3B with no outs. B3 hits a gound ball to F6 who muffs the ball (a) in front and is still able to make an out, or (b) and the ball goes over F6's shoulder. In both cases, the runner R1 hits F6 unintentionally.

RULING: In (a) if F6 can still make an out, dead ball and interference would be called. In (b) the runner R1 had tried to avoid the play by running behind the fielder and this would be considered an incidental contact rather than interference (8.8D; 8.7K)

[greymule]

These are good points, and I'm glad you posted them.

However, these plays are not really a "deflected" ball. I agree that if there's a ground ball to F4 that hits him in the chest and falls in front of him, then interference by the runner does not have to be intentional. F4 is where he would have been had he fielded the ball cleanly. But I don't think we're talking about a deflected ball in that case.

A ball that ricochets off the pitcher toward F4 is another matter. On that play, I think interference has to be intentional.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by greymule
These are good points, and I'm glad you posted them.

However, these plays are not really a "deflected" ball. I agree that if there's a ground ball to F4 that hits him in the chest and falls in front of him, then interference by the runner does not have to be intentional. F4 is where he would have been had he fielded the ball cleanly. But I don't think we're talking about a deflected ball in that case.

A ball that ricochets off the pitcher toward F4 is another matter. On that play, I think interference has to be intentional.

I was responding directly to Tap's post, which is why I quoted it as part of the response. I am very much aware that it has nothing to do with a deflected ball, thank you.

[greymule]

I know you are aware of the distinction, Mike. Just wanted to clarify.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by greymule
I know you are aware of the distinction, Mike. Just wanted to clarify.

Okay. I guess I should have put one of these at the end of the last post:

[DownTownTonyBrown]

As several of you have hinted but no one has precisely said it (and I'm not sure this answer is precise - it seems awful long to be precise):

Once the ball is hit (by the bat), the defense must be afforded opportunity to field the hit ball. If the runner interferes with this opportunity, then the runner shall be called out.

Once the defense has had their opportunity (muffed or deflected the ball), the runner is no longer in jeopardy if he is hit. His act would be unintentional if the deflected ball were to hit him - the defense caused the ball to hit him. You can't call a runner out for that; even if another defensive player were in a position to make a play. The runner was only hit because the ball was deflected into him by the defense. LIVE BALL. PLAY ON.

Now, the ball is deflected and dribbling toward the shortstop and the runner collides as the SS fields the ball. Umpire must make a judgement of the runner's intention. The SS MUST go to the ball to make his fielding effort (even after it has been deflected). The runner, however, can run anywhere. Therefore, the greater responsibility for the collision, or avoidance of a collision, is upon the runner.

If the shortstop is capable of making a position adjustment to field the ball, the runner should also be capable of making a similar adjustment to avoid the collision. If the adjustment is not made by the runner and a collision occurs, I have intent and the runner is going to be called out.

Intent is not really that difficult. Was there opportunity for the runner to alter his course; did the runner make an effort to avoid the collision?

If the answer to the opportunity question is no, then there can be no intent to collide. Live ball; play on.

If the answer to the opportunity is yes and an effort was made, again, live ball, play on.

If the answer to the opportunity is yes but it seemed that no effort was made or that the runner created contact (hoping to disrupt the play) then I've got DEAD BALL, RUNNER IS OUT. And if the contact is egregious, I may have an ejection, and I would have no qualms calling another runner out if I felt there was defensive opportunity for a double play.

Seems pretty basic. See the big picture.