interference with batted ball

[nelyak]

Situation:
Runner leaves 2nd when hit ball deflects off glove or body of pitcher and hits runner. Short is directly behind the runner attempting to field the ball.

Is the runner safe or out?
Does the contact with pitcher matter if it is body or glove?
Does contact with pitcher negate portion of rule which states "or another fielder has opportunity to make play"?

[nelyak]

I forgot to say that the runner was hit by the batted ball

[Tap]

If the ball hits the pitcher (body, glove, equipment, etc.) or other fielder for that matter, the runner will not be ruled out for interference unless the runner could have avoided contact with the ball. ASA Rule 8-8-F. I guess that's similar to the runner being out only if she/he intentionally contacted the ball, though the rule seems to place slightly more responsibility on the runner to make an attempt to avoid the ball. In practice, these may be nearly the same standards. If it looks like the runner tried to get out of the way or did not have the opportunity to do so, then no call.

In your situation, sounds like a no call.

[TruBlu]

I think if the shortstop had a reasonable chance to make a play, then the runner is out. If a batted ball deflects off of a fielder, but another fielder has a chance at a play, the runner will be called out in most cases, whether or not she tries to get out of the way.

[Little Jimmy]

It would seem that ASA 8-7-K would indicate that the runner is out if another player had a chance to field the ball in the situation you stated.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by TruBlu
I think if the shortstop had a reasonable chance to make a play, then the runner is out. If a batted ball deflects off of a fielder, but another fielder has a chance at a play, the runner will be called out in most cases, whether or not she tries to get out of the way.

Speaking ASA

I think Tap has it right. It basically must be an intentional act on behalf of the runner who makes contact with the deflected ball for the umpire to rule interference. Whether a defender has a play or not is irrelevent.

ASA 8.8.F
ASA Casebook 8.9-6
ASA Clinic Guide Page 49

[WestMichBlue]

I think that 8.4.F is a little more precise. "When a fair batted ball has been touched by an infielder, including the pitcher, and the runner did not intentionally interfere with the batted ball or the fielder attempting to field the batted ball. Effect: The ball is in play."

WMB

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by WestMichBlue
I think that 8.4.F is a little more precise. "When a fair batted ball has been touched by an infielder, including the pitcher, and the runner did not intentionally interfere with the batted ball or the fielder attempting to field the batted ball. Effect: The ball is in play."

WMB

Correct you are.

[Dakota]

Originally posted by Little Jimmy
It would seem that ASA 8-7-K would indicate that the runner is out if another player had a chance to field the ball in the situation you stated.

No, 8-7K does not apply since the ball has been deflected. Notice 8-7K says, "When the runner is struck with a fair untouched batted ball ... "

The correct rule has already been cited.

[Del-Blue]

I think most of the time you will get the out on the runner that is hit, because they think they are out, and usually give up. This makes an out by the fielder almost certain. I have had this play many times during AA slowpitch.

[greymule]

The interference has to be intentional. ASA clarified this last year or the year before, as it was a bit ambiguous.

Now how about a runner who unintentionally interferes with a fielder attempting to field a deflected ball?

[Dakota]

Originally posted by greymule
Now how about a runner who unintentionally interferes with a fielder attempting to field a deflected {batted] ball?

(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]

[TruBlu]

Intentional or unintentional, do you really want to make that distinction? If the ASA wants the ump to make every call on a runner hit by a batted ball based on the intent, they are asking us to take on an argument we don't need. 99 out of 100 times if a runner is hit by a fair batted ball and not in contact with a base, while a fielder has a chance to make a play, the runner will be called out.

[Dakota]

Originally posted by TruBlu
Intentional or unintentional, do you really want to make that distinction?

Want to or not, the rules required it.

If the ASA wants the ump to make every call on a runner hit by a batted ball based on the intent, they are asking us to take on an argument we don't need. 99 out of 100 times if a runner is hit by a fair batted ball and not in contact with a base, while a fielder has a chance to make a play, the runner will be called out.

No, intent only needs to be ruled if the batted ball is deflected AND hits a runner AND another fielder had an opportunity for an out. The rule is to be fair to the runner - the runner is obligated to stay out of the way of the defense, but can't be held responsible for a deflected ball that changes direction suddenly. Therefore, intent on the part of the runner is required.

How do you guage intent? Some indicators are obvious - reaching out, etc. Others are more subtle - slow roller deflects off F1 toward F5. R1, running from second, has ample opportunity to go around F5 or the ball, but does not change path and is hit by the ball. Judgment - did the runner intentionally get in the way, or was there any indication the runner attempted to get out of the way?

[Little Jimmy]

I stand corrected on my misreading of 8-7-K.