New partner

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by Rita C

Hmmm. I just checked high school softball and no intent required.

OBR 7.09a expanded language includes intent if it bounces off the catcher or umpire.

Doesn't seem right to penalize the batter for unintentionally interfering after the defense has erred. Especially in such tight quarters.


Rita

Rita, I think we on this board have had that "the defense erred" discussion before. Here's the process:

1) Offense failed to hit strike three; be it swinging or called.
2) Defense failed to catch strike three. Defense needs to make a play to complete the out. Offense catches a break here.

How/why does the offense now get consideration for a free pass if batter-runner's actions keep the defense from completing the out? Sure, defense didn't catch it, but offense didn't hit it.

[Rita C]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

Rita, I think we on this board have had that "the defense erred" discussion before. Here's the process:

1) Offense failed to hit strike three; be it swinging or called.
2) Defense failed to catch strike three. Defense needs to make a play to complete the out. Offense catches a break here.

How/why does the offense now get consideration for a free pass if batter-runner's actions keep the defense from completing the out? Sure, defense didn't catch it, but offense didn't hit it.

There ought to be some room for doubt for the batter if it lands at her feet.

But if intent isn't to matter, so be it. I'll call it that way. But doesn't mean I have to like it.

Rita

[MD Longhorn]

Just don't call BR out if the ball simply hits her right off the catcher and she doesn't DO anything. I've seen umpires insist that because she happened to be where the ball went, she "interfered" because she altered the path of the ball.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Just don't call BR out if the ball simply hits her right off the catcher and she doesn't DO anything. I've seen umpires insist that because she happened to be where the ball went, she "interfered" because she altered the path of the ball.

Yes. It still requires "an act".

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Just don't call BR out if the ball simply hits her right off the catcher and she doesn't DO anything. I've seen umpires insist that because she happened to be where the ball went, she "interfered" because she altered the path of the ball.

Just like a thrown ball hitting a runner who had no intent.

[jmkupka]

I was looking into the origins of the D3K rule awhile back, and I recall it stemmed from the days way back when F2 was positioned further back & every pitch was caught on the bounce.
That and the theory that every batter-batter/runner must be retired on either a tag or a catch (so that even a K involves a catch).

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Just don't call BR out if the ball simply hits her right off the catcher and she doesn't DO anything. I've seen umpires insist that because she happened to be where the ball went, she "interfered" because she altered the path of the ball.

Well, I would agree, but I do not believe ASA does. Even if the BR is moving away and the ball hits them as the catcher is trying to retrieve the ball, it is INT.

I proposed a rule change to include "intent" on the BRs behalf. Only problem was I picked the year that they dumped most of the rest of the "intent" references. Did not even get the support of the umpire committee.

Personally, I'm all for going back the original rule and the batter is out on strike three. End of story, no second chances.