Jump to content

Kicked uncaught third strike


basejester
Umpire-Empire locks topics which have not been active in the last year. The thread you are viewing hasn't been active in 3527 days so you will not be able to post. We do recommend you starting a new topic to find out what's new in the world of umpiring.

Recommended Posts

OBR

An uncaught third strike bounces off the catcher into fair territory. The batter-runner accidentally kicks the ball several feet while running to first. The batter-runner reaches first base safely. What, if anything, do you have here?

Here's an applicable rule:

7.09 It is interference by a batter or a runner when—

(a) After a third strike he clearly hinders the catcher in his attempt to field the ball.

Such batter-runner is out, the ball is dead, and all other runners return to the bases

they occupied at the time of the pitch.

Rule 7.09(a) Comment: If the pitched ball deflects off the catcher or umpire and subsequently

touches the batter-runner, it is not considered interference unless, in the judgment of the umpire, the

batter-runner clearly hinders the catcher in his attempt to field the ball.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to this you just have to be the judge!

 

Rule 7.09(a) Comment: If the pitched ball deflects off the catcher or umpire and subsequently
touches the batter-runner, it is not considered interference unless, in the judgment of the umpire, the
batter-runner clearly hinders the catcher in his attempt to field the ball.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

OBR

An uncaught third strike bounces off the catcher into fair territory. The batter-runner accidentally kicks the ball several feet while running to first. The batter-runner reaches first base safely. What, if anything, do you have here?

Here's an applicable rule:

7.09 It is interference by a batter or a runner when—

(a) After a third strike he clearly hinders the catcher in his attempt to field the ball.

Such batter-runner is out, the ball is dead, and all other runners return to the bases

they occupied at the time of the pitch.

Rule 7.09(a) Comment: If the pitched ball deflects off the catcher or umpire and subsequently

touches the batter-runner, it is not considered interference unless, in the judgment of the umpire, the

batter-runner clearly hinders the catcher in his attempt to field the ball.

this doesn't talk about intent, so that's not necessary.  Based on that, and the OP, ...you'd have INT here

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess my question is really does "clearly hinders the catcher in his attempt to field the ball" include deflecting the ball, or just getting in the way of the catcher himself? In this case, the unintentional kick clearly prevented the out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here are some really helpful hints from Harry Wendelstedt's manual:

 

"If the ball is barely affected, there may be no interference, however, if the ball is knocked a considerable distance away, interference is likely.

 

It no longer makes any difference whether the interference was avoidable. All that matters is whether interference clearly occurred.

 

There is no "both players doing their job" exception as with batted balls out in front of the plate."

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess my question is really does "clearly hinders the catcher in his attempt to field the ball" include deflecting the ball, or just getting in the way of the catcher himself? In this case, the unintentional kick clearly prevented the out.

IMO, I give the benefit of the doubt to the BR here since F2 already had a chance at fielding the pitch.

It's definitely a HTBT type situation.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here are some really helpful hints from Harry Wendelstedt's manual:

 

"If the ball is barely affected, there may be no interference, however, if the ball is knocked a considerable distance away, interference is likely.

 

It no longer makes any difference whether the interference was avoidable. All that matters is whether interference clearly occurred.

 

There is no "both players doing their job" exception as with batted balls out in front of the plate."

 

Interesting. Intent doesn't matter at all here, only outcome.

 

If he intends to kick the ball, just brushes it, and it rolls closer to a fielder (thus helping rather than hindering), no INT, play on.

 

If he unintentionally kicks it to the backstop, INT.

 

That's not the FED rule (8-4-2-g)(8-4-1-a), which still revolves around intent for this ruling.

 

I kinda like the WUM standard: outcome is a lot easier to judge than intent.

 

Edited to correct the reference per @goody14 just below. Thanks!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For FED, I would use 8-4-1-a

 

ART. 1 . . . The batter-runner is out when:

a. he intentionally interferes with the catcher's attempt to field the ball after a third strike;

Looks like intent is required in FED.

 

In the OP, using OBR, I grab the out.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess my question is really does "clearly hinders the catcher in his attempt to field the ball" include deflecting the ball, or just getting in the way of the catcher himself? In this case, the unintentional kick clearly prevented the out.

The rule and MLBUM interp changed last year I think. Seen it called in MLB. DTK bounces in front of batter who sends it down 1B line with his thigh as he strides out of the box. The location of the batter is no longer relevant.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

The Wendelstedt manual has five plays illustrating how to rule on possible interference on an uncaught strike three. All of them start with the same proviso: The umpire should wait to see whether the batter's actions interfered with the catcher making a play. Carl Childress in his BRD refers to this as the introduction of basketball's "slow whistle" to baseball.

 

No one mentioned it before but the NCAA rules the same way the Fed does--there has to be intent for interference to be called.

 

I also want to take issue with a statement made in an earlier post: "if he intends to kick the ball, just brushes it, and it rolls closer to a fielder (thus helping rather hindering) no INT, play on."

 

I strongly disagree with this interpretation. I would have, "Time! I have interference on the batter-runner. He's out!"

 

The Jaksa/Roder manual says it pretty well: "A runner must prove by his actions and the way he positions himself that his intent is to reach and stay on a base safely. Actions that disregard this intent and show, rather, an intent to interfere...

 

If a runner makes an attempt to kick the ball it does not matter if he is successful or not. His action alone shows his intent is to interfere. He is out immediately.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...