U3K and Interference

[tcannizzo]

Originally Posted by Altor

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.

This is INT. B/BR is only protected in the batter's box if they are motionless. Any movement that is not part of the actual swing is interpreted as actively hindering.

We are also wandering off topic which is U3K

[youngump]

Originally Posted by tcannizzo

This is INT. B/BR is only protected in the batter's box if they are motionless. Any movement that is not part of the actual swing is interpreted as actively hindering.

We are also wandering off topic which is U3K

Can you back that up by rule?

[tcannizzo]

Originally Posted by youngump

Can you back that up by rule?

By rule and interp:

7-6s. When actively hindering the catcher while in the batter's box.
RS 33B (in part) The batter's box is not a sanctuary

"Actively hindering" has been defined as moving. If she is motionless, she is protected. Actively hindering occurs even if the batter appears to be making an honest attempt to get out of the way so F2 can make a play. So sad, too bad.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by tcannizzo

By rule and interp:

7-6s. When actively hindering the catcher while in the batter's box.
RS 33B (in part) The batter's box is not a sanctuary

"Actively hindering" has been defined as moving. If she is motionless, she is protected. Actively hindering occurs even if the batter appears to be making an honest attempt to get out of the way so F2 can make a play. So sad, too bad.

Both of those apply to the batter. This is the batter-runner.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by tcannizzo

This is INT. B/BR is only protected in the batter's box if they are motionless. Any movement that is not part of the actual swing is interpreted as actively hindering.

Not true at all.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by tcannizzo

By rule and interp:

7-6s. When actively hindering the catcher while in the batter's box.
RS 33B (in part) The batter's box is not a sanctuary

"Actively hindering" has been defined as moving. If she is motionless, she is protected. Actively hindering occurs even if the batter appears to be making an honest attempt to get out of the way so F2 can make a play. So sad, too bad.

This is a bizarre way of interpreting actively hindering considering you have a player that SHOULD be moving and SHOULD NOT be motionless at this point in the play.

[DaveASA/FED]

Originally Posted by 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.

I don't disagree with your thrown ball analogy but I beleive the more important analogy is what happens on a hit ball. A D3K is a ball that has been put in play much like a hit ball. If the BR hits a ball and starts to 1B and the ball bounces up and hits them (out of the batters box) are they out? Yes, even if they didn't do anything. So I think we need to have the same thought pattern we would on a d3k as we do on a hit ball, not compare it to a thrown ball.

[MD Longhorn]

The rule regarding a batted ball says, clearly ... if the runner is hit by the ball (blah blah blah) - not if the runner interferes with the ball. It's worded entirely differently ... on purpose. If they wanted these two situations to be analogous, they rule we are discussing would say, "if B/R is hit by the ball" and not "if B/R interferes with ..."

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

The rule regarding a batted ball says, clearly ... if the runner is hit by the ball (blah blah blah) - not if the runner interferes with the ball. It's worded entirely differently ... on purpose. If they wanted these two situations to be analogous, they rule we are discussing would say, "if B/R is hit by the ball" and not "if B/R interferes with ..."

Yes; and no.

Remember (or be advised if you didn't know) that I used to be one of "they", a member of the ASA Rules Committee; in the years interference rules were revised to mostly eliminate intent. And this was part of that batch.

Philosophically, the committee discussed interference as fitting different niches in the accountability scale. The philosophy was also based on equity, not giving either offense or defense an unfair advantage in any case.

At one end, there are the rules where the offense just must avoid at all costs, and is fully accountable; avoid a fielder fielding a batted ball, avoid an untouched batted ball don't hit the ball with a dicarded bat, those cases where the offense "actively" interferes. At the far end, don't make the offense accountable for something the defense fully controls; the opportunity for a defender to try to implement kickball rules and just hit the runner with a throw when the runner has no control over the throw (and generally no opportunity to avoid it if it is thrown at them).

Then there is the middle ground; the "wreck" near the plate when BR exits and F2 is chasing a bunt (one where no one is wrong), and this, where you COULD see both sides not being in the wrong and neither fully accountable. Not the batted ball end versus the thrown ball end of that spectrum.

Back to my original and not very definitive post in this thread. The defense must be given an opportunity to make a "play", and the offense cannot "interfere" with that opportunity. This isn't black and white absolute, it's JUDGEMENT, it's why we get paid the big bucks. Know the intent of equity and creating the fairest and most even possible balance between the offense and defense.

Nope, there isn't ONE absolute answer. If you need one, try a different game.

[EsqUmp]

The biggest issue is who created the so-called interference. Batter-runners are not expected to disappear. If the ball ricochets off of the catcher's shin guard and hits the batter-runner, that's not an act committed by the batter-runner. It's an act of the catcher not catching the ball nor fielding it cleaning. Catcher's cannot create interference by playing the ball poorly any more than a batter-runner can create obstruction by going out of her way. The interference and obstruction rules exist to create a level playing field, literally. Those who are quick to blame the batter for striking out are neglectful in appreciating that the catcher couldn't catch the ball either. Batter-runners shouldn't be expected to know how a ball is going to deflect off of a catcher any more than they are required to jump through hoops as a runner on a deflected ball.