Pitched ball - Subsequent deflection

[sdix00]

This was posted to our association for research this week. I ended up spending quite a lot of time on it and learned a lot about "intent" and considering whether the ball "would have" gone out of play.

With R1 on first, F1 makes a pitch that bounces and deflects off F2's shinguard toward dead-ball territory. R1 is stealing on the play and easily reaches second base as F2 chases the ball. F2 intentionally deflects the ball and it goes into dead-ball territory. The umpire believes the ball would have left the playing field without F2's deflection.

a. R1 is awarded second base.

b. R1 is awarded third base.

c. R1 is awarded home.

Ruling for each code.

To those in my association, I have already researched this and have my answer. Just looking for a discussion and any points I may have missed.

[Guest]

I'm presuming the question is designed to imply the ball was intentionally deflected out of play...

OBR: 2 bases from the time of the deflection (since it's intentional). R1 scores

Baseball Canada (since everyone is interested in that interpretation ): Same as OBR

FED / NCAA: :shrug:

[sdix00]

I'm presuming the question is designed to imply the ball was intentionally deflected out of play...

OBR: 2 bases from the time of the deflection (since it's intentional). R1 scores

Baseball Canada (since everyone is interested in that interpretation ): Same as OBR

FED / NCAA:

F2 intentionally deflects the ball and it goes into dead-ball territory.

[Guest]

I'm presuming the question is designed to imply the ball was intentionally deflected out of play...

OBR: 2 bases from the time of the deflection (since it's intentional). R1 scores

Baseball Canada (since everyone is interested in that interpretation ): Same as OBR

FED / NCAA:

F2 intentionally deflects the ball and it goes into dead-ball territory.

Yes I can read thank you...

As written, the sentence is still unclear.

Reading the question, you could be wondering "Did he intentionally deflect the ball into dead ball territory?" or "did he purposely touch the ball and it accidentally rolled out of play as a result?"

It makes a difference. The point of the rule the question is looking to test is determinant on whether or not the fielder deflected the ball with the sole purpose of knocking it into DBT.

[mstaylor]

The problem that makes the answer unclear is the umpire is ruling the initial pitch was going to carry it out of play whether the catcher hit it or not. Hitting it intentionally is a possible red herring. I believe in HS if the ball is intentionally thrown or carried out of play then it is two bases from that point. I believe I would be inclined to award two from the kick and give him home.

[yawetag]

FED: 8.3.3 SITUATION K, PLAY C: F1 throws a pitch that strikes F2 on a shinguard and rolls away. F2 intentionally kicks the ball into dead-ball territory. RULING: If the umpire judges the pitch would have gone into dead-ball territory without the kick, one base is awarded from the time of the pitch. If the kick is judged to have caused the ball to go into dead-ball territory, two bases are awarded from the time of the throw/kick.

[hckyosgood30]

FED/NCAA are the same here. Like Yawetag stated, if the umpire believes it's going into dead ball territory WITHOUT the catcher creating a new impetus on the ball then its only 1 base. If you believe that it wouldn't have gone out without the new impetus then it's 2 bases. This was an NCAA question a few years back.

[Forest Ump]

So to sum it up:

OBR, Canada. Two Bases TOI. Award without regard to the balls intial momentum. Intentional is penalized.

NCAA / FED. Award one or two bases TOI. Take into account the balls initial momentum. Intentional may not be penalized.

[noumpere]

FED/NCAA are the same here. Like Yawetag stated, if the umpire believes it's going into dead ball territory WITHOUT the catcher creating a new impetus on the ball then its only 1 base. If you believe that it wouldn't have gone out without the new impetus then it's 2 bases. This was an NCAA question a few years back.

I dont think HS and NCAA are the same on this play. I agree with the HS ruling above (one base from TOP). The NCAA rule in 8.3.o.(4) at the TOP of page 97 indicates that its two bases from the time of pitch.

[UmpJM]

I concur with noumpere.

I believe NCAA and OBR are the same, and FED is a little different (surprise, surprise!).

JM

[sdix00]

FED is definitely different. Andrew nailed it.

I agree that the rule books in NCAA and OBR call for the same award on this play.

However, one of them has an interp that may change your mind about enforcing the same award.

[UmpJM]

DIX,

In terms of the specifics of your hypothetical -

- deflected pitch

- which would go out of play on its own impetus (in the umpire's judgement)

- which is then intentionally deflected out of play by the catcher...

the award is two bases from the runners' position at the time of the intentional deflection under both NCAA and OBR.

JM

[sdix00]

DIX,

In terms of the specifics of your hypothetical -

- deflected pitch

- which would go out of play on its own impetus (in the umpire's judgement)

- which is then intentionally deflected out of play by the catcher...

the award is two bases from the runners' position at the time of the intentional deflection under both NCAA and OBR.

JM

I agree on the OBR ruling. I believe PBUC 6.8 allows the umpire to award from time of deflection (TOT).

I disagree on the NCAA ruling.

8-3-o-(4) says the award is 2 from TOP.

NCAA

8-3-o-(4)

o. Each runner is entitled to two bases:

(4) If, during an attempt to field a wild pitch, passed ball, or wild throw

on a pick-off attempt, the catcher or any other fielder deflects the ball

into a dead-ball territory, the runner(s) shall be awarded two bases

from the bases occupied at the time of the pitch.

A.R. —If the ball has stopped rolling or it is clear that the ball will not roll into dead ball

territory and a new impetus is applied to the ball by a defensive player, the awards are

two bases from the time of the act.

I do not see a rule which allows the umpire to award from the time of deflection based on the conditions in the OP.

[UmpJM]

DIX,

I believe 8-3-o (5) takes precedence, even though it does not explicitly identify a "pitch" but specifies a "batted or thrown" ball.

(5) If any batted or thrown ball intentionally is kicked, thrown, deflected

or carried into a dead-ball territory, the runner(s) shall be awarded

two bases from the time of the act; or

The thing is, if the fielder (catcher, in this case) intentionally deflects the ball out of play he is NOT "attempt(ing) to field" as (4) stipulates, and I believe the intent of the NCAA rule is to penalize the intentional act, even if it's a pitch, by making it a "time of act" penalty.

JM

[Rich Ives]

The conversation:

Ump: "Time - you - two bases."

Coach: "But blue - it would have gone out on its own"

Ump: "It was intentionally kicked so we'll never know that will we"

[sdix00]

DIX,

I believe 8-3-o (5) takes precedence, even though it does not explicitly identify a "pitch" but specifies a "batted or thrown" ball.

(5) If any batted or thrown ball intentionally is kicked, thrown, deflected

or carried into a dead-ball territory, the runner(s) shall be awarded

two bases from the time of the act; or

The thing is, if the fielder (catcher, in this case) intentionally deflects the ball pout of play he is NOT "in the act of fielding" as (4) stipulates, and I believe the intent of the NCAA rule is to penalize the intentional act, even if it's a pitch, by making it a "time of act" penalty.

JM

I considered that. In fact Carl Childress agrees with you.

Unfortunately, I am not sure it would hold up under protest.

8-3-o-5 is explicit in that it applies to a batted or thrown ball. I am not sure it is appropriate to extend this ruling to a pitched ball without some more guidance. The same problem exists in OBR, however PBUC 6.8 has addressed it, while NCAA has not addressed it.

Further, NCAA does require the umpire to enforce from TOT under certain circumstances. So it can be argued that they have addressed exactly when to enforce from TOP and when to enforce from TOT.

8-3-o-(4)A.R. —If the ball has stopped rolling or it is clear that the ball will not roll into dead ball

territory and a new impetus is applied to the ball by a defensive player, the awards are

two bases from the time of the act.

[BT_Blue]

For those of us that also work football think of it this way. The pitch is no longer a pitch when a new "force" is added to the ball. In this case the catcher added a new force to the ball which would make it TOT.

[noumpere]

Im just catching up on the Referee magazines but in the Febuary edition they have this play and award the runenr third in NCAA. I recognize this might be used as an arguement for the other side. lol.

[Guest]

For those of us that also work football think of it this way. The pitch is no longer a pitch when a new "force" is added to the ball. In this case the catcher added a new force to the ball which would make it TOT.

That depends on the rule set and whether or not the ball would have gone out of play on its own.

FED seems to give credence to the "the ball would have gone out on its own" argument, even if it was booted out intentionally.

In Canada, we penalize intentional deflections in like manner to OBR but if the deflection is not meant to put the ball out of play and it would have gone out on its own, the award is only one base.

[Rich Ives]

Stop reading Referee

[mstaylor]

Stop reading Referee

I wouldn't say quit reading Referee but read it cautiously. Do not take what they say at face value. It actually makes you think about what they are saying and see if it makes sense. If it doesn't, why not.

[noumpere]

Stop reading Referee

I wouldn't say quit reading Referee but read it cautiously. Do not take what they say at face value. It actually makes you think about what they are saying and see if it makes sense. If it doesn't, why not.

I agree and sometimes I come to the conclusion that they are wrong and sometimes I come to the conclusion that I am wrong and Ive learnt something. Thats what I meant by my comment that the ruling might be used in support of either position. I did LOL at Richs comment tho.

[mstaylor]

If nothing else it gives us something to discuss here. :)