Bat Hits Uncaught 3rd Strike

[JonnyCat]

This situation came up in our UIC meeting tonight and I wanted to get a ruling and a rule cite.

 

LL majors division (mod-OBR). No outs, nobody on. Batter swings and misses at strike 3, catcher drops pitch and ball rolls a couple of feet away from catcher. Batter drops bat and starts to run for 1B, dropped bat hits ball and ball rolls a few feet away from catcher. Catcher cannot field ball in time and BR reaches 1B safely. Bat drop hitting ball was not intentional. Ruling? Safe at first? Interference? What have you got?

 

Some cited 6.05c, but is incorrect as that covers a batted ball. Others cited 6.06c, but was unsure if that one applies in this situation.  

 

Any thoughts or input? Thanks.

[afaber12]

I couldn't think of any other reference to a dropped bat apart from 6.05c. I did a quick search and couldn't find another one either. Unless someone can point out my wrongness (or there's some mention of it in the modifications to the rules mentioned, which seems unlikely) it would seem that this would be one of the rare times that using 9.01c would be correct, so you could rule however you want. That being said, it would seem that using 6.05c - to call "that's nothing" and leave the batter safe at first - as a template would be very reasonable

[baseballfan]

Appropriate rule could be 7.09(a)

[Mike Prince]

7.09(a) is the correct rule to apply.  It allows for a bit of judgement with the statement that the batter must "clearly hinder" the catcher.  The interps from the BRD use a similar play, except the batter unintentionally steps on the ball in foul ground on his way to 1B - in OBR, the BRD rules that time should be called and the batter called out for INT only if the act is deemed to be intentional.

 

Since your OP states that the bat/ball contact is not judged intentional, keep the B/R on first base.

[Stan W.]

absolutely if determined to be non intentional, use 7.09(a)...........the rulebook, although poorly worded at times, is fairly complete if you add in the interp manuals you should be covered........the use of 9.01c should be reserved for that time when your pitcher hits a seagull with a fast ball turning the poor bird into dust and feathers.......most everything else is covered in the book or interp manuals.....

 

Insert plug for CC's BRD........all primary codes and most interps as well.. 

[Mike Prince]

I would venture to say that few if any of us will ever use 9.01© in our umpiring lifetimes.

 

As @Stan W. says, the rules are complete enough so that every situation we are likely to see (vs. make up on an internet forum) will be covered by a rule and/or an interp.

[Rich Ives]

6.05 distinguishes between a fair and foul batted ball being struck by a bat a second time. Fair - out. Foul - requires intent. Perhaps apply the same logic?

 

7.09 wording in LL does not have the new OBR wording.  The OBR interp when it had the wording still in the LL book was that if a kick happened in the vicinity of the plate play on. That should apply here. 

 

Don't lose sight of the fact that in the OP the ball is loose because F2 screwed up.

[JonnyCat]

7.09(a) is the correct rule to apply.  It allows for a bit of judgement with the statement that the batter must "clearly hinder" the catcher.  The interps from the BRD use a similar play, except the batter unintentionally steps on the ball in foul ground on his way to 1B - in OBR, the BRD rules that time should be called and the batter called out for INT only if the act is deemed to be intentional.

 

Since your OP states that the bat/ball contact is not judged intentional, keep the B/R on first base.

That's what I thought to use on this play, but I wasn't sure about the Intentional/unintentional aspect of the play.

My gut feeling was to leave the runner at 1B because of the bat hitting the ball unintentionally, but I could not find a case play for this situation.

 

7.09a make sense.

 

Thanks for the replies.

[JonnyCat]

6.05 distinguishes between a fair and foul batted ball being struck by a bat a second time. Fair - out. Foul - requires intent. Perhaps apply the same logic?

 

7.09 wording in LL does not have the new OBR wording.  The OBR interp when it had the wording still in the LL book was that if a kick happened in the vicinity of the plate play on. That should apply here. 

 

Don't lose sight of the fact that in the OP the ball is loose because F2 screwed up.

Great point, Rich. Catcher did have an opportunity to field the ball cleanly.

[johnnyg08]

I would venture to say that few if any of us will ever use 9.01© in our umpiring lifetimes.

I would venture to say that few if any of us should ever use 9.01c in our umpiring lifetimes.

 

I think it probably gets over-used in many circles.