default
Member
___
default
Member
If in the umpire's judgement F2 had a play on R1 (i.e. an opportunity to make an out) - Interference on retired batter and R1 is out (ASA 8.7.P). Otherwise, dead ball to keep R1 from advancing past 2B.
default
Member
Potatoskins, the ruling is correct by the umpires in that situation. The batter is automatically out and the interference kills the play and all base runners are returned to their bases. R1 did not cause the interference so would not be declared out just would return to 1st base.
default
Member
The batter was already out from striking out, so they can't be declared out again for interference. ASA 8.7.P covers this specific case:
P. When, after being declared out or after scoring, an offensive player interferes with a defensive player's opportunity to make a play on another runner.
EFFECT: The ball is dead. The runner closest to home plate at the time of the interference is out. All runners not out must return to the last base touched at the time of the interference.
default
Member
As it should have been.
DBO (dead ball out) occurred prior to contact with the ball. The runner should have safe return back to 1B.
default
Member
The key there is intentional/unintentional. NFHS covers it as well in 8-2-6. If in the opinion of the umpire there was an OBVIOUS attempt to prevent a double play, the runner closest to home would be out as well. Since the ruling was unintentional the runner returns to 1st base.
default
Member
You're right...I meant to say dead ball at the time of contact with the ball. The batter was out on the strikeout with 1st base occupied. The runner coming from 1st can advance at her own risk, but becomes a dead ball at the time the batter-runner contacts the ball.
Ball contact becomes a judgement call as to whether it was intentional or unintentional. Unintentional should put the runner back to 1st, while malicious or intentional contact could put her in jeopardy of being called out as well.
default
Member
Players can unintentionally interfere...and, if they do, it's still interference!
This one is really pretty simple. The only question the umpire has to ask himself is, "Did the player's actions prevent the defender from making a play?".
(Note: By "making a play", the rules mean that the defense had some reasonable and realistic opportunity to record an out, not just merely field the ball.)
If the answer is "Yes", then the ball is dead and the runner closest to home is out.
If the answer is "No", then the ball remains live and there is no additional penalty.
There is no intent needed to be judged for those two calls- she either did or she didn't (interfere, that is).
If the retired batter did happen to intentionally kick the ball, it doesn't really matter. The penalty would still be the same- dead ball, closest runner out.
default
Member
I understand the ball is kept live in DMC cases where the catcher is making an unnecessary throw to 1B to get the already retired batter. In the OP's case, where the retired batter kicked the ball, it seems like keeping the ball live would potentially allow the offense to gain an advantage from an action of its own player.
Example: R1 is running with the pitch, so no interference because F2 had no opportunity for a play at 2B. Offense sees the ball is kicked away from fielders, so R1 continues to 3B and makes it safely. Is that right? Is there another determination of interference based on a potential play at 3B?
default
Member
You know...you're probably right. I gave pause when I wrote "the ball remains live" and questioned myself if that was right.
Even if it's not interference, the ball should probably become dead upon contact with the retired batter. I can't find any rule or ruling that directly addresses this exact play, but have found similar rulings where the ball becomes dead.
For instance, if a batter hits an infield fly, then is hit by her own batted ball, the ball becomes dead. The batter is out when she hits the infield fly, so she would be a retired batter when contacting the ball- same as in our original question.
That's the only rule I've been able to find about a retired batter contacting a live ball and the ball becoming immediately dead. It's essentially treated like a blocked ball by the offensive team. That seems to be in the same spirit of our play, but it's not the exact same play.
default
Member
Play was brought up at a local umpire rules meeting last night.. Proper call is batter is automatically out, the ball becomes dead IMMEDIATELY and all runners return to bases . However, if there are 2 outs, the batter is declared out AUTOMATICALLY. Only difference would be is if the catcher were to fumble the ball and batter/runner were to unintentionallykick or strike the ball which is an umpires judgement.
default
Member
That sounds reasonable enough and I'm not doubting that's how it should be called.
But I really have to wonder which exact rule (and exact rule number) they are using to say that the ball becomes immediately dead. I can't find anything that directly addresses that.
But I really have to wonder which exact rule (and exact rule number) they are using to say that the ball becomes immediately dead. I can't find anything that directly addresses that.
default
Member
If the batter had bunted and stepped on the ball in fair territory on the way to 1st, the play would be dead (batter out) and the runner has to go back.
I don't see how this scenario would be any different.
default
Member
Generally, there are different rules and penalties covering active players (in your example, an active batter-runner who is entitled to be running the bases, or a runner who is already on base, or a batter who has not yet completed her time at-bat) versus inactive players (players who have already been put out and have no right to advance, as in the first post, runners who have already scored, dugout personel or on-deck batters).
In your example, the rules clearly define what the batter-runner did as an act of interference. In the play being discussed, we are looking at an act judged to not be interference.
Your example is for a player committing interference and getting herself called out. When a retired player causes interference, one of the runners is called out.
So, they are kind of the same, but kind of different.
default
Member
This kind of reminds me of a play last year. Runner on third, ball four to batter was in dirt, catcher blocks it, ball rolls in front of runner who, in her haste to take her base, unintentionally kicks it down the first base line allowing runner on third to walk in. What's the call beside bad luck?
default
Member
Same as Scooter7's last post - dead ball, batter-runner out for interference and runner has to return to 3B.
default
Member
SoCal - that was my argument, but Ump's treated this play was unintentional contact with ball, that the catcher blocked the ball into the basepath of the runner, and ball live. He said this was akin to a ball hit to shortstop, kicking off her chest into the baseline and runner kicking it. My argument was even that play should be interference if the defensive player still has a play.....
default
Member
The runner kicking a ball that bounced off the SS is only interference if it was intentional. The rules give the runner some slack on batted balls that deflect off a fielder because they can't really anticipate it happening or where the ball will go. I don't know of any rules providing similar protection for pitched balls that deflect off the catcher.
BTW, the fielder only has the right-of-way on the initial attempt to field the ball. After that, it is obstruction if they impede the runner.
default
Member
SCDad, I think that you have access to a rule book. On the ball four play, by what rule would you call the batter-runner out? This seems like kind of a gray area not specifically addressed by any one certain rule.
A batter-runner contacting her own batted ball would be out. But this one contacted a deflected ball that, at that point, would be treated more like a thrown ball. That means the standard for interference would be if the contact was intentional or not. Same as with a wild throw that just happens to get in a runner's path, if the contact is accidental, then there is no rule violation.
I think that ASA may have clarified a similar play on their website. I'll see if I can find it and see what it says.
A batter-runner contacting her own batted ball would be out. But this one contacted a deflected ball that, at that point, would be treated more like a thrown ball. That means the standard for interference would be if the contact was intentional or not. Same as with a wild throw that just happens to get in a runner's path, if the contact is accidental, then there is no rule violation.
I think that ASA may have clarified a similar play on their website. I'll see if I can find it and see what it says.
default
Member
SoCal - yes, I see now the rule on your first point, thanks for clarifying for me Rule 8, Section 8.F. But I can't find the rule on your second point on obstruction...I thought that if a feilder is in the act of "fielding a batted ball" it is not obstruction, at least that is what is in Rule 1 under the definition of obstruction
