Interesting rare play

[Guest Newump]

 

2 situations but similar 

1. No one on.  Pitcher is on the rubber with the ball, it slips out of his hand and starts rolling towards the foul line between the plate and 1st base. Knowing the rule if it crosses the foul line it will be a ball the heads up 1st baseman sprints and picks up ball a few feet before it passes foul line. Is this anything?

 

2. No one on.  Pitcher is on the rubber with the ball, he starts his wind up and attempts to deliver the pitch and slips, by doing so he spikes ball in the ground and is now rolling hard towards the plate.  Knowing the rule if it crosses the foul line it will be a ball the heads up catcher gets up and takes a couple steps in front of the plate and scoops it up before it reaches the plate. Is this anything?

[Richvee]

I’ve got 2 different answers based on the batters ability to hit the “pitch”. 

1.  No pitch.  The ball is up the line batter had no chance at swinging at it, so F3 picking up the ball didn’t  hinder  the batter.  

2.  Ball is rolling towards the plate. The batter has every right to swing at the pitch, even if it crosses the plate rolling on the ground. F2 got in front of the plate and hindered  the batters opportunity to hit the pitch.—— Catcher interference, award batter 1b. 

Opposing opinions welcomed 

[Senor Azul]

It seems the only rules interpretation manual  I have that addresses the question raised in the first scenario is the Jaksa/Roder manual. Here is what it says in the 2017 edition (p. 146)--

“A slip (as opposed to a pitch or throw) is a released baseball, intended to be a pitch or throw, but that lacks both aim and momentum. Any intended pitch that slips out of a pitcher’s hand and crosses (or, if it is touched, would have crossed) a foul line is a ball. An intended pitch that slips and does not cross a foul line is a balk if there is a runner, and no pitch if there is not a runner. [6.02b Comment]"

[yawetag]

1. I'd agree with the J/R interp. While the batter wouldn't have the ability to swing, the first baseman still prevented a ball from being added to the count. Think of a 3-1 count; F3 just prevented the batter from reaching base on a walk.
2. I see no difference in this than the multitude of situations of an F2 reaching forward to get a pitch early on a stealing R3. OBS, send batter to first. Though, I'd suspect the best way to rule this is to give the batter a ball to the count and tell F2 not to do it again.

[beerguy55]

I'd rule them both the same.  Ball.

Both are intended pitches, now doing something unexpected - and the status of the "pitch" now depends entirely on whether or not it crosses the line...or could have.

 

Technically - The batter has the "chance" of swinging at any pitch that crosses the foul line - as shown last year in a NCAA game where a batter jokingly "swung" at a slipped pitch  that was about 30 feet away, and was called a strike.  So, you would have to address it in both scenarios....and not just based on how far away the ball is from the batter.

I think the intent of the rule regarding preventing a batter's ability to swing is what a batter WOULD swing at, not could - and, to some degree, gauge the batter's intent.   No reasonable batter would want to swing at such a pitch - and in all likelihood as soon as the slip occurs the batter's body language almost certainly indicates he's not going to swing - so I'd rule out interference.

[yawetag]

45 minutes ago, beerguy55 said:

I think the intent of the rule regarding preventing a batter's ability to swing is what a batter WOULD swing at, not could - and, to some degree, gauge the batter's intent.   No reasonable batter would want to swing at such a pitch - and in all likelihood as soon as the slip occurs the batter's body language almost certainly indicates he's not going to swing - so I'd rule out interference.

I disagree. Nothing in F2 OBS/INT states the ball has to be something the batter "would" swing at - just that he has to give the batter the ability to swing at the pitch.

Situation: R3 stealing on the pitch. F1/F2 knew it was coming, so purposely threw the ball far outside of the left-handed batter's zone. F2 steps in front of the plate to receive the pitch, then places the tag on R3 before he touches the plate.

The batter never would have swung at the pitch, but he most definitely could have, had F2 not stepped in front of the plate. OP's situation #2 - at its core - is no different.

[beerguy55]

2 hours ago, yawetag said:

I disagree. Nothing in F2 OBS/INT states the ball has to be something the batter "would" swing at - just that he has to give the batter the ability to swing at the pitch.

Situation: R3 stealing on the pitch. F1/F2 knew it was coming, so purposely threw the ball far outside of the left-handed batter's zone. F2 steps in front of the plate to receive the pitch, then places the tag on R3 before he touches the plate.

The batter never would have swung at the pitch, but he most definitely could have, had F2 not stepped in front of the plate. OP's situation #2 - at its core - is no different.

I may be remembering something wrong, but I thought I had read/heard an interpretation, specifically to R3 stealing home, with the batter, who knows the steal is coming, starts to step back and away from the plate/pitch/runner - the batter has no intent to swing, so there's nothing to interfere with.

However, if you are right, then I think both situation 1 and 2 have to be treated the same, for reasons I stated above.   It's either a ball for both or interference for both.  The batter COULD swing at either "pitch".

[Richvee]

11 hours ago, yawetag said:

1. I'd agree with the J/R interp. While the batter wouldn't have the ability to swing, the first baseman still prevented a ball from being added to the count. Think of a 3-1 count; F3 just prevented the batter from reaching base on a walk.
2. I see no difference in this than the multitude of situations of an F2 reaching forward to get a pitch early on a stealing R3. OBS, send batter to first. Though, I'd suspect the best way to rule this is to give the batter a ball to the count and tell F2 not to do it again.

I could live with this.  But I’m also thinking, If F3 actually knows the rule and hustles in to stop the ball before it crosses the line, maybe we should reward him for rules knowledge and heads up play.