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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

"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.

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.

I think we get 2 outs on that play.

8-2-G

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.

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

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.

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

Not true at all.

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.

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.

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.

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.