U3K and Interference
 

Some of you may have seen this on the Facebook group page....

ASA: (this play actually happened today) Right handed batter. Dropped third strike hits the dirt ricochets off of the catcher's leg guard and clips the BR's heal as she's running up the baseline (just outside the left handed batters box). Ruling? (Please site a rule #)

ASA rule 8.2-F(6); BR is out when....

Your challenge is to determine if the BR committed an act that interfered. It should be absolute if the BR contacts the ball; maybe not so much if the ball contacts the unknowing BR.

That said, it is not a defense that the BR was unknowing, or contact was inadvertent, or even that you want to assign the misplay to the catcher (hey, the BATTER made it 3K, right??). The BR may not interfere with the defense's opportunity to make a play on that ball; period. Judgement is required.

Probably the most ambiguous post of yours, for my brain, which I can remember. Do I need a new brain for 2015 or can you expand/clarify?

Is the last sentence about the first sentence?

Do the bold parts make the OP facts ("clips the BR's heal as she's running"), clearly INT? Does that conflict with "maybe not so much if the ball contacts the unknowing BR"?

What he said is that if the BR interfered with the ball on a U3K, it is a dead ball, the BR is out and all runners return to the base last touched at the time of the INT. IOW, there is no requirement of intent on the BR's part. If the umpire judges INT, it is INT and rules should be applied at such. :)

In prior discussions about this rule, people used all the excuses I mentioned above for why they wouldn't use the rule in the book. My point is that the only legitimate reason to NOT make that an out is if you judge the contact did not interfere with the defense having an opportunity making a play; which is possible, but rare. Don't assume it isn't an out then use an excuse to support that preference; assume it IS an out until the exception applies.

The OP didn't tell us anything that would support any ruling besides interference.

I was one of those who didn't like the rule for the longest time and tried to rationalize not making those calls...until this past year.

Then I came to the realization (epiphany, if you will) that U3K has the same status as a fair batted ball, such as forces are effect, etc. Any contact with the ball by an offensive player not in contact with a base is INT.

TWP but an interesting twist. R1 on 3B. U3K caroms off the catchers shin guard and is rolling up the 3B line towards F5 who was anticipating a bunt. R1 attempts to steal home and makes contact with the ball. I don't have a rule citation to back me up, but I am have INT on R1.

The same one you'd use for a U2K (uncaught second strike). No?

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

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.)

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.

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.

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?