U3K and Interference

[MD Longhorn]

Getting hit by a ball is not an act.

This play is NOT the same as a batted ball striking a runner. The rule about that one simply states that if a batted ball strikes a runner (given certain conditions), that runner is out. The D3K rule states that the batter is out if he/she interferes. If they wanted the rulings to be the same, they would have worded it the same.

I equivocate the D3K more closely (although still not identical) with a thrown ball. If a runner is contacted by a thrown ball, it's nothing ... unless they interfere (an active, not passive, verb). Batter (or runner) must DO something to prevent a play from being made. Getting hit by a ball is not an ACT of interference.

[jmkupka]

The velocity with which it came back from the brick backstop was such that, after ball and BR made contact, it very much impacted F2's ability to field the ball.
My call was, his running into the path of the rebounded ball was an act.

Sounds like, some consider this more along the lines of when F6 boots the play, and the ball rebounds into the runner from 2B with no chance to avoid it.

[teebob21]

It might not be the "right" way to judge this, but I mentally approach U3K+INT as the following:

1. Did the BR move in a way judged to intentionally contact the ball?
2a. Before contact, did any defender have an opportunity to make a play on the ball?
2b. Did the BR's contact with the ball apply an impetus to the ball that resulted in interfering with the defense's opportunity to make a play?

If the answer to either #1 or #2a AND #2b is "Yes", I have a dead ball and an out. Otherwise, play on.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by teebob21

It might not be the "right" way to judge this, but I mentally approach U3K+INT as the following:

1. Did the BR move in a way judged to intentionally contact the ball?
2a. Before contact, did any defender have an opportunity to make a play on the ball?
2b. Did the BR's contact with the ball apply an impetus to the ball that resulted in interfering with the defense's opportunity to make a play?

If the answer to either #1 or #2a AND #2b is "Yes", I have a dead ball and an out. Otherwise, play on.

This is precisely what I was getting at earlier in this thread. Using "intentionally" in any part of your approach renders it inaccurate. The rule 8.2-F does not add that condition, nor does any discussion in RS#33.

According to the rule, the RS, and the definition of interference, if the BR commits an act which interferes with the defense making a play, it is a dead ball out. That means that even if you think the act was inadvertent and unintentional, if it interferes, the rule applies. You don't get to make excuses for the offense keeping the defense from making a play.

[MD Longhorn]

Intentional does matter. It's not required - not at all... but if you have something intentional, you don't have to have anything else.

If you have nothing intentional, THEN all the other things that are being discussed come into play.

[teebob21]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Intentional does matter. It's not required - not at all... but if you have something intentional, you don't have to have anything else.

If you have nothing intentional, THEN all the other things that are being discussed come into play.

Agreed. If an offensive player ever goes out of their way to kick, slap, bump, or otherwise touch a loose ball, then I have INT immediately. All other circumstances require additional judgment of the situation.

To Steve's point, though, I agree we can't make excuses for the offense keeping the defense from making a play. I can only recall a single instance of this occurring where I did not have INT. I should have included rule support for each of my considerations. If I had a current ASA rulebook handy, I would have added the citations in my previous post.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by youngump

Are you saying that this isn't interference because his description doesn't include it preventing the defense from making a play or because even if it had running to first and getting hit by a bad bounce is not an act of inteference?

Correct. For that matter, it is quite possible it aided the defense if it caused the ball to deflect to or in a manner which it gave the defense an opportunity that did not exist prior to the contact.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Correct. For that matter, it is quite possible it aided the defense if it caused the ball to deflect to or in a manner which it gave the defense an opportunity that did not exist prior to the contact.

So you answered my A or B question yes, but with your explanation I think you're saying A. If so:

Catcher drops strike three which hits the backstop hard and then hits the runner who a) has not had time to move. B) Has taken a couple steps toward first
In either case the ball hitting the runner prevents the charging pitcher from easily fielding the ball for an easy putout of the runner

Interference in B, the act was moving into the path of the ball, it interfered with a play on the runner
No Interference in A, the BR did not commit an act.

Is that correct?

[DaveASA/FED]

Originally Posted by youngump

So you answered my A or B question yes, but with your explanation I think you're saying A. If so:

Catcher drops strike three which hits the backstop hard and then hits the runner who a) has not had time to move. B) Has taken a couple steps toward first
In either case the ball hitting the runner prevents the charging pitcher from easily fielding the ball for an easy putout of the runner

Interference in B, the act was moving into the path of the ball, it interfered with a play on the runner
No Interference in A, the BR did not commit an act.

Is that correct?

I'm not trying to answer for Irish, but no that's not correct. Rule 8.2.F.6 tells us they are out if they interfere with a dropped 3rd strike, intentional or not don't have to make any act just have to interfere. Is that fair? Who knows but it's what the rule says!
F. When the batter-runner interferes with:
1. A fielder attempting to field a batted ball.
2. A fielder attempting to throw the ball.
3. A thrown ball while out of the batter’s box.
4. By making contact with a fair batted ball before reaching first base.
5. By discarding their bat in a manner that prevents the defense from making
a play on the ball.
6. (Fast Pitch) A dropped third strike.

[MD Longhorn]

"Interferes with" and "gets hit by" are two COMPLETELY different things.

If a batter-runner INTERFERES WITH a thrown ball (part 3 of this same rule), he's out. If a batter-runner GETS HIT BY a thrown ball that hits him in the back (or clips him in the heel ... like the OP), it's nothing.

Same on D3K. Same rule - different lines.

Yet for some reason you guys want to create a higher standard of avoidance on the BR for part 6 than any sane umpire would for part 3.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by DaveASA/FED

I'm not trying to answer for Irish, but no that's not correct. Rule 8.2.F.6 tells us they are out if they interfere with a dropped 3rd strike, intentional or not don't have to make any act just have to interfere. Is that fair? Who knows but it's what the rule says!
F. When the batter-runner interferes with:
1. A fielder attempting to field a batted ball.
2. A fielder attempting to throw the ball.
3. A thrown ball while out of the batter’s box.
4. By making contact with a fair batted ball before reaching first base.
5. By discarding their bat in a manner that prevents the defense from making
a play on the ball.
6. (Fast Pitch) A dropped third strike.

No, it's not what the rule says. For a batter runner to interfere with something they have to be committing the rulebook definition of interference. Paraphrasing: "an act the impedes or confuses." If you're definition were right, then all the catcher would have to do is toss the ball into the runner for an out. This is not dodgeball.

Interestingly, though in reading what you posted, I noticed something I hadn't before. The rule for interference with a thrown ball by the batter runner does not apply if the batter runner is in the batters box. Suicide play batter bunts down the first base line poorly (ball goes right to the charging F3). To give the runner more time on the play, the BR remains in the box positioned between where the fielder will get the ball and where the catcher is set up. F3 has to take a few steps out and throw to F2 who is now just late on the tag. Legal play?

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by youngump

No, it's not what the rule says. For a batter runner to interfere with something they have to be committing the rulebook definition of interference. Paraphrasing: "an act the impedes or confuses." If you're definition were right, then all the catcher would have to do is toss the ball into the runner for an out. This is not dodgeball.

Interestingly, though in reading what you posted, I noticed something I hadn't before. The rule for interference with a thrown ball by the batter runner does not apply if the batter runner is in the batters box. Suicide play batter bunts down the first base line poorly (ball goes right to the charging F3). To give the runner more time on the play, the BR remains in the box positioned between where the fielder will get the ball and where the catcher is set up. F3 has to take a few steps out and throw to F2 who is now just late on the tag. Legal play?

Nope. That BR would be out for interference, and the runner returns to third. The rule you noticed applies to situations like when the batter-runner is running in her lane to first, but she raises her arms and a throw from F2 hits one of them. Her staying in the batter's box to affect F3's throw is an act with clear intent to interfere. She has no business just standing there when she hit the ball fairly.

[Tru_in_Blu]

Originally Posted by Manny A

Nope. That BR would be out for interference, and the runner returns to third.

I think we get 2 outs on that play.

8-2-G

[youngump]

Originally Posted by Manny A

Nope. That BR would be out for interference, and the runner returns to third. The rule you noticed applies to situations like when the batter-runner is running in her lane to first, but she raises her arms and a throw from F2 hits one of them. Her staying in the batter's box to affect F3's throw is an act with clear intent to interfere. She has no business just standing there when she hit the ball fairly.

I agree with your result, but I'm not convinced that this really a fair way to read the rulebook. What exactly is the exception in place for? I'm having trouble imagining the BR getting hit by a throw while still in the batters box without it being this kind of thing.

[Altor]

Originally Posted by youngump

I'm having trouble imagining the BR getting hit by a throw while still in the batters box without it being this kind of thing.

How about this...

R1 on second, 2-out, 3-2 count. Ball four called as R1 attempts to steal third. F2 throws the ball to F5 but the throw clips the BR who started toward 1st, but had not yet left the batter's box.