U3K and Interference

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by tcannizzo

IMO, No. For U2K, or even a non-strike, I believe you'd have to judge some form of "intent", as in INT with a thrown ball. U3K is unique in this sense.

I do not believe intent would be necessary. It is a live ball, the offense has a responsibility to avoid interfering with the defense's opportunity to make a play

[youngump]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

I do not believe intent would be necessary. It is a live ball, the offense has a responsibility to avoid interfering with the defense's opportunity to make a play

So let me see if I can break this down. I'm still not 100% sure I understand this rule. Please let me know what's wrong below or try and explain in even smaller words for me.

If a batted ball is contacted by a player in fair territory before it passes a fielder (or etc) no judgment is required this is always interference by rule.

If a misplayed ball is contacted by a player who is attempting to advance or return to a base then judgment is required as to whether the player interfered. Judgment is not required as to intent, this is not a thrown ball. Contacting the ball is not in and of itself interference but if the player hits the ball and this interferes with a play then it is. For example, if no fielder were anywhere near the ball and the contact didn't make it harder to make a play, play on. If the ball hits the player, then we have nothing unless the player did something to interfere.

This would apply the same way on an U2K or U3K on the runner coming home from third.

If strike three ricochets out of the catchers glove into the batter, that's nothing. If it ricochets out of the catchers glove in front of the batter and he kicks it that's interference. Not because it's interference by rule to touch the ball, but because he did something, kicked the ball, that interfered with the catcher playing it. On an U2K in the same circumstance, we'd only have interference if something is happening on the bases that was interfered with by the kick.

If the kick doesn't interfere with anything but still keeps the catcher from getting the ball, kill the play before somebody starts running. (This one really confuses me.)

[tcannizzo]

Originally Posted by youngump

If strike three ricochets out of the catchers glove into the batter, that's nothing.

Wrong it is INT.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by tcannizzo

Wrong it is INT.

No, not necessarily. The ball simply hitting the B/BR is not necessarily INT. The B/BR must commit an act that prevents the defense from making a play.

[jmkupka]

Similar sit in my one and only real men's FP game. Brick backstop, outside pitch swung at for 3K, gets by F2 untouched, and ricochets back into the batter before he took his second step.
But his first step was an act which put him in the path of the ball. So I had an out.
Lots o' angry offense players.

BTW, it was my only game because the mens FP league was ending

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by jmkupka

Similar sit in my one and only real men's FP game. Brick backstop, outside pitch swung at for 3K, gets by F2 untouched, and ricochets back into the batter before he took his second step.
But his first step was an act which put him in the path of the ball. So I had an out.
Lots o' angry offense players.

BTW, it was my only game because the mens FP league was ending

I'd be angry too if there was no interference.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

I'd be angry too if there was no interference.

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?