U3K and Interference

[Andy]

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 #)

[AtlUmpSteve]

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.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

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"?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

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.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

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"?

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.

[tcannizzo]

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.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by tcannizzo

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?