Interference on play at Plate

[tiger79]

Runner on 3B with no outs. Pitch is in the dirt, catcher blocks it and the ball rolls behind the batter who, in my opinion, inadvertently kicks the ball away as he backs out of the box thinking the runner may score on the PB. The ball was kicked back towards the dugout and the runner scored. What should have been the call? The run was allowed.

[Jocko]

Runner on 3B with no outs. Pitch is in the dirt, catcher blocks it and the ball rolls behind the batter who, in my opinion, inadvertently kicks the ball away as he backs out of the box thinking the runner may score on the PB. The ball was kicked back towards the dugout and the runner scored. What should have been the call? The run was allowed.

 

I need some help with this. How did he  inadvertently kick the ball as he was backing up? If the ball hit the back of his heel and rolled away as he was backing up, I am not calling  BI.

 . how is this relevant? Any act means ANY act

 

 

Ball hits foot or foot hits ball. HUGE difference right?that's not what happened in the op.

[Magic]

Runner on 3B with no outs. Pitch is in the dirt, catcher blocks it and the ball rolls behind the batter who, in my opinion, inadvertently kicks the ball away as he backs out of the box thinking the runner may score on the PB. The ball was kicked back towards the dugout and the runner scored. What should have been the call? The run was allowed.

I need some help with this. How did he inadvertently kick the ball as he was backing up? If the ball hit the back of his heel and rolled away as he was backing up, I am not calling BI.

.

how is this relevant? Any act means ANY act

Ball hits foot or foot hits ball. HUGE difference right?

that's not what happened in the op.

And Jocko that is why I asked the questions I asked. No doubt that if ball was kicked it is BI.

[tiger79]

To clarify, I was the plate umpire, the ball was kicked away by the back of the foot or ankle. The pitched ball was in the dirt near the batter's feet, deflected by the catcher to behind the batter who was moving away from the pitch and catcher who was crashing almost into him.

[millerforrest]

So this is the "SPIRIT" of the rule or is this the by the book rule?

[MadMax]

@millerforrest – From the way this _reads_, @tiger79 went by the "spirit of the rule" and did nothing. @JaxRolo commended him on it. Others (myself included) may have, if it was so glaring of an event (but yet still judged inadvertent), placed the runner back on 3B. Again, "spirit of the rule(s)"...

 

There are some, though, that you're seeing are taking the "by the book" and "letter of the law" approach, and would rule the batter out on BI...

 

On a ball that ricocheted into him...

 

That he didn't see...

 

And was trying to get out of the way of...

[Replacematt]

@millerforrest – From the way this _reads_, @tiger79 went by the "spirit of the rule" and did nothing. @JaxRolo commended him on it. Others (myself included) may have, if it was so glaring of an event (but yet still judged inadvertent), placed the runner back on 3B. Again, "spirit of the rule(s)"...

 

There are some, though, that you're seeing are taking the "by the book" and "letter of the law" approach, and would rule the batter out on BI...

 

You're using a lot of words that you don't seem to understand.

 

Doing nothing here is not a correct call. BI is BI. The only question is which rule is pertinent. The only place where the concept of CSFP comes into play is what part of 6.06c this falls under.

[Richvee]

Interesting thread. Good discussion. The part of this whole thing that trips me up is, there was no play on a runner until the batter kicks the ball. He didn't technically interfere with the catcher's ability to make a play on a runner..he CAUSED the catcher to have to make a play on a runner. I agree with @millerforrest that this might be a place to umpire by the spirit of the rule. I find it difficult to penalize the offense for R3's decision to run home after he saw the ball kick away from HP. Now if R3 broke for home on the original bounce away from F2, and THEN the batter kicks the ball while stepping away from the box, BI all day every day. 

[Replacematt]

Interesting thread. Good discussion. The part of this whole thing that trips me up is, there was no play on a runner until the batter kicks the ball. He didn't technically interfere with the catcher's ability to make a play on a runner..he CAUSED the catcher to have to make a play on a runner. I agree with @millerforrest that this might be a place to umpire by the spirit of the rule. I find it difficult to penalize the offense for R3's decision to run home after he saw the ball kick away from HP. Now if R3 broke for home on the original bounce away from F2, and THEN the batter kicks the ball while stepping away from the box, BI all day every day. 

 

Here's the problem. If you use that analysis, you are treating it akin to backswing interference (the only type of BI that has no out attached.) That is a very narrowly and intentionally defined part of BI, and if you're in FED, then you still have issues with outs. Now, I'm not saying that this isn't the "right" decision, but it's the one that has the smallest amount of traction in the rules, and opens a can of worms when it comes to other unintentional interference that is covered under 6.06c or 7.09c. 

[Jocko]

@millerforrest – From the way this _reads_, @tiger79 went by the "spirit of the rule" and did nothing. @JaxRolo commended him on it. Others (myself included) may have, if it was so glaring of an event (but yet still judged inadvertent), placed the runner back on 3B. Again, "spirit of the rule(s)"...

 

There are some, though, that you're seeing are taking the "by the book" and "letter of the law" approach, and would rule the batter out on BI...

 

On a ball that ricocheted into him...

 

That he didn't see...

 

And was trying to get out of the way of...

lemme ask you a question.....runner scores and is headed back to his dugout (3B side).the ball is overthrown in the general direction of home plate and skips around eventually hitting R3 (retired) on the foot and deflecting it away from F2 trying to field it. R1 advances to 3B, R2 scores BECAUSE of the deflection. Whats your call?

[Richvee]

 

Interesting thread. Good discussion. The part of this whole thing that trips me up is, there was no play on a runner until the batter kicks the ball. He didn't technically interfere with the catcher's ability to make a play on a runner..he CAUSED the catcher to have to make a play on a runner. I agree with @millerforrest that this might be a place to umpire by the spirit of the rule. I find it difficult to penalize the offense for R3's decision to run home after he saw the ball kick away from HP. Now if R3 broke for home on the original bounce away from F2, and THEN the batter kicks the ball while stepping away from the box, BI all day every day. 

 

Here's the problem. If you use that analysis, you are treating it akin to backswing interference (the only type of BI that has no out attached.) That is a very narrowly and intentionally defined part of BI, and if you're in FED, then you still have issues with outs. Now, I'm not saying that this isn't the "right" decision, but it's the one that has the smallest amount of traction in the rules, and opens a can of worms when it comes to other unintentional interference that is covered under 6.06c or 7.09c. 

 

I completely understand that. That's why I'm torn on my opinion here. I know the rules aren't always "fair'. But this seems like a case where we sort of have to read between the lines to come up with a decision, which is why I might lean to "spirit of the rule" here, and put R3 back at 3rd. Providing, of course, I was 100% sure R3 didn't break for home until after the kick. 

[Jocko]

Interesting thread. Good discussion. The part of this whole thing that trips me up is, there was no play on a runner until the batter kicks the ball. He didn't technically interfere with the catcher's ability to make a play on a runner..he CAUSED the catcher to have to make a play on a runner. I agree with @millerforrest that this might be a place to umpire by the spirit of the rule. I find it difficult to penalize the offense for R3's decision to run home after he saw the ball kick away from HP. Now if R3 broke for home on the original bounce away from F2, and THEN the batter kicks the ball while stepping away from the box, BI all day every day.

he caused F2 to have to make a play on the runner? Batter was backing out thinking there was gonna be a play, if I read the op correctly. He int with F2 collecting the ball which let R3 advance to the plate. I'm all for spirit of the rule, but sans the kick, R3 may have been put out. Would you agree with that? So, the kick created the INT that took the opportunity to record an out away from the DT (unfair advantage, OT). And isn't the entire rule book, and our job as the administrators of said rules to ensure that neither team gains an unfair advantage?

[Replacematt]

 

 

Interesting thread. Good discussion. The part of this whole thing that trips me up is, there was no play on a runner until the batter kicks the ball. He didn't technically interfere with the catcher's ability to make a play on a runner..he CAUSED the catcher to have to make a play on a runner. I agree with @millerforrest that this might be a place to umpire by the spirit of the rule. I find it difficult to penalize the offense for R3's decision to run home after he saw the ball kick away from HP. Now if R3 broke for home on the original bounce away from F2, and THEN the batter kicks the ball while stepping away from the box, BI all day every day. 

 

Here's the problem. If you use that analysis, you are treating it akin to backswing interference (the only type of BI that has no out attached.) That is a very narrowly and intentionally defined part of BI, and if you're in FED, then you still have issues with outs. Now, I'm not saying that this isn't the "right" decision, but it's the one that has the smallest amount of traction in the rules, and opens a can of worms when it comes to other unintentional interference that is covered under 6.06c or 7.09c. 

 

I completely understand that. That's why I'm torn on my opinion here. I know the rules aren't always "fair'. But this seems like a case where we sort of have to read between the lines to come up with a decision, which is why I might lean to "spirit of the rule" here, and put R3 back at 3rd. Providing, of course, I was 100% sure R3 didn't break for home until after the kick. 

 

 

I'll throw this out for your aforementioned thought process: should it be R3 breaking, F2 attempting to field to make a play, or either?

[Richvee]

 

Interesting thread. Good discussion. The part of this whole thing that trips me up is, there was no play on a runner until the batter kicks the ball. He didn't technically interfere with the catcher's ability to make a play on a runner..he CAUSED the catcher to have to make a play on a runner. I agree with @millerforrest that this might be a place to umpire by the spirit of the rule. I find it difficult to penalize the offense for R3's decision to run home after he saw the ball kick away from HP. Now if R3 broke for home on the original bounce away from F2, and THEN the batter kicks the ball while stepping away from the box, BI all day every day.

he caused F2 to have to make a play on the runner? Batter was backing out thinking there was gonna be a play, if I read the op correctly. He int with F2 collecting the ball which let R3 advance to the plate. I'm all for spirit of the rule, but sans the kick, R3 may have been put out. Would you agree with that? So, the kick created the INT that took the opportunity to record an out away from the DT (unfair advantage, OT). And isn't the entire rule book, and our job as the administrators of said rules to ensure that neither team gains an unfair advantage?

 

I re-read the OP. It isn't 100% clear when R3 started home. The way I envision the play was F2 blocks the pitch, R3 has done nothing but take his normal lead with no intention of trying to score until the ball is kicked away from the plate then he breaks for home. This would be the scenario where I have trouble with BI and an out.

 

On the other hand, if R3 as much as started 2-3 steps down the line after F2's block , and R3 continues home when batter kicks the ball, now I've got BI without question. 

[Richvee]

 

 

 

Interesting thread. Good discussion. The part of this whole thing that trips me up is, there was no play on a runner until the batter kicks the ball. He didn't technically interfere with the catcher's ability to make a play on a runner..he CAUSED the catcher to have to make a play on a runner. I agree with @millerforrest that this might be a place to umpire by the spirit of the rule. I find it difficult to penalize the offense for R3's decision to run home after he saw the ball kick away from HP. Now if R3 broke for home on the original bounce away from F2, and THEN the batter kicks the ball while stepping away from the box, BI all day every day. 

 

Here's the problem. If you use that analysis, you are treating it akin to backswing interference (the only type of BI that has no out attached.) That is a very narrowly and intentionally defined part of BI, and if you're in FED, then you still have issues with outs. Now, I'm not saying that this isn't the "right" decision, but it's the one that has the smallest amount of traction in the rules, and opens a can of worms when it comes to other unintentional interference that is covered under 6.06c or 7.09c. 

 

I completely understand that. That's why I'm torn on my opinion here. I know the rules aren't always "fair'. But this seems like a case where we sort of have to read between the lines to come up with a decision, which is why I might lean to "spirit of the rule" here, and put R3 back at 3rd. Providing, of course, I was 100% sure R3 didn't break for home until after the kick. 

 

 

I'll throw this out for your aforementioned thought process: should it be R3 breaking, F2 attempting to field to make a play, or either?

 

Would you agree F2 isn't fielding to make a play unless R3 breaks? If F2 blocks the ball, batter kicks it, R3 does nothing but return to 3rd, we have nothing. So my logic tells me if R3 doesn't break until after the kick, kill it and send him back. If he broke for home before the kick, BI. 

 

Again...I have no rule to back me up, but giving that I don't see where the rules have anything 100% cut and dry on such a play, I'm thinking this might be a time to rule within the spirit of the rules.  

[Jocko]

Interesting thread. Good discussion. The part of this whole thing that trips me up is, there was no play on a runner until the batter kicks the ball. He didn't technically interfere with the catcher's ability to make a play on a runner..he CAUSED the catcher to have to make a play on a runner. I agree with @millerforrest that this might be a place to umpire by the spirit of the rule. I find it difficult to penalize the offense for R3's decision to run home after he saw the ball kick away from HP. Now if R3 broke for home on the original bounce away from F2, and THEN the batter kicks the ball while stepping away from the box, BI all day every day.

he caused F2 to have to make a play on the runner? Batter was backing out thinking there was gonna be a play, if I read the op correctly. He int with F2 collecting the ball which let R3 advance to the plate. I'm all for spirit of the rule, but sans the kick, R3 may have been put out. Would you agree with that? So, the kick created the INT that took the opportunity to record an out away from the DT (unfair advantage, OT). And isn't the entire rule book, and our job as the administrators of said rules to ensure that neither team gains an unfair advantage?

I re-read the OP. It isn't 100% clear when R3 started home. The way I envision the play was F2 blocks the pitch, R3 has done nothing but take his normal lead with no intention of trying to score until the ball is kicked away from the plate then he breaks for home. This would be the scenario where I have trouble with BI and an out.

 

On the other hand, if R3 as much as started 2-3 steps down the line after F2's block , and R3 continues home when batter kicks the ball, now I've got BI without question.

so, in your mind, R3 wouldnt have scored without the kick?

[Replacematt]

 

 

 

 

Interesting thread. Good discussion. The part of this whole thing that trips me up is, there was no play on a runner until the batter kicks the ball. He didn't technically interfere with the catcher's ability to make a play on a runner..he CAUSED the catcher to have to make a play on a runner. I agree with @millerforrest that this might be a place to umpire by the spirit of the rule. I find it difficult to penalize the offense for R3's decision to run home after he saw the ball kick away from HP. Now if R3 broke for home on the original bounce away from F2, and THEN the batter kicks the ball while stepping away from the box, BI all day every day. 

 

Here's the problem. If you use that analysis, you are treating it akin to backswing interference (the only type of BI that has no out attached.) That is a very narrowly and intentionally defined part of BI, and if you're in FED, then you still have issues with outs. Now, I'm not saying that this isn't the "right" decision, but it's the one that has the smallest amount of traction in the rules, and opens a can of worms when it comes to other unintentional interference that is covered under 6.06c or 7.09c. 

 

I completely understand that. That's why I'm torn on my opinion here. I know the rules aren't always "fair'. But this seems like a case where we sort of have to read between the lines to come up with a decision, which is why I might lean to "spirit of the rule" here, and put R3 back at 3rd. Providing, of course, I was 100% sure R3 didn't break for home until after the kick. 

 

 

I'll throw this out for your aforementioned thought process: should it be R3 breaking, F2 attempting to field to make a play, or either?

 

Would you agree F2 isn't fielding to make a play unless R3 breaks? If F2 blocks the ball, batter kicks it, R3 does nothing but return to 3rd, we have nothing. So my logic tells me if R3 doesn't break until after the kick, kill it and send him back. If he broke for home before the kick, BI. 

 

Again...I have no rule to back me up, but giving that I don't see where the rules have anything 100% cut and dry on such a play, I'm thinking this might be a time to rule within the spirit of the rules.  

 

 

Let me rephrase...F2 goes for the ball to make a potential play or to hold the runner.

[Richvee]

 

 

 

Interesting thread. Good discussion. The part of this whole thing that trips me up is, there was no play on a runner until the batter kicks the ball. He didn't technically interfere with the catcher's ability to make a play on a runner..he CAUSED the catcher to have to make a play on a runner. I agree with @millerforrest that this might be a place to umpire by the spirit of the rule. I find it difficult to penalize the offense for R3's decision to run home after he saw the ball kick away from HP. Now if R3 broke for home on the original bounce away from F2, and THEN the batter kicks the ball while stepping away from the box, BI all day every day.

he caused F2 to have to make a play on the runner? Batter was backing out thinking there was gonna be a play, if I read the op correctly. He int with F2 collecting the ball which let R3 advance to the plate. I'm all for spirit of the rule, but sans the kick, R3 may have been put out. Would you agree with that? So, the kick created the INT that took the opportunity to record an out away from the DT (unfair advantage, OT). And isn't the entire rule book, and our job as the administrators of said rules to ensure that neither team gains an unfair advantage? I re-read the OP. It isn't 100% clear when R3 started home. The way I envision the play was F2 blocks the pitch, R3 has done nothing but take his normal lead with no intention of trying to score until the ball is kicked away from the plate then he breaks for home. This would be the scenario where I have trouble with BI and an out.

 

On the other hand, if R3 as much as started 2-3 steps down the line after F2's block , and R3 continues home when batter kicks the ball, now I've got BI without question. so, in your mind, R3 wouldnt have scored without the kick?

 

The way I envision the play in the OP is R3 doesn't break for home until the ball is kicked. 

[Richvee]

 

 

 

 

 

Interesting thread. Good discussion. The part of this whole thing that trips me up is, there was no play on a runner until the batter kicks the ball. He didn't technically interfere with the catcher's ability to make a play on a runner..he CAUSED the catcher to have to make a play on a runner. I agree with @millerforrest that this might be a place to umpire by the spirit of the rule. I find it difficult to penalize the offense for R3's decision to run home after he saw the ball kick away from HP. Now if R3 broke for home on the original bounce away from F2, and THEN the batter kicks the ball while stepping away from the box, BI all day every day. 

 

Here's the problem. If you use that analysis, you are treating it akin to backswing interference (the only type of BI that has no out attached.) That is a very narrowly and intentionally defined part of BI, and if you're in FED, then you still have issues with outs. Now, I'm not saying that this isn't the "right" decision, but it's the one that has the smallest amount of traction in the rules, and opens a can of worms when it comes to other unintentional interference that is covered under 6.06c or 7.09c. 

 

I completely understand that. That's why I'm torn on my opinion here. I know the rules aren't always "fair'. But this seems like a case where we sort of have to read between the lines to come up with a decision, which is why I might lean to "spirit of the rule" here, and put R3 back at 3rd. Providing, of course, I was 100% sure R3 didn't break for home until after the kick. 

 

 

I'll throw this out for your aforementioned thought process: should it be R3 breaking, F2 attempting to field to make a play, or either?

 

Would you agree F2 isn't fielding to make a play unless R3 breaks? If F2 blocks the ball, batter kicks it, R3 does nothing but return to 3rd, we have nothing. So my logic tells me if R3 doesn't break until after the kick, kill it and send him back. If he broke for home before the kick, BI. 

 

Again...I have no rule to back me up, but giving that I don't see where the rules have anything 100% cut and dry on such a play, I'm thinking this might be a time to rule within the spirit of the rules.  

 

 

Let me rephrase...F2 goes for the ball to make a potential play or to hold the runner.

 

My scenario where I think I might have R3 return would be where F2's original block of the ball was enough to hold R3. Any movement from R3 towards home after the block, and then a kick, BI.  

 

..and as I type, the White Sox blow another win for Sale and my rotisserie team. "sigh"

[JaxRolo]

[Replacematt]

ImageUploadedByTapatalk1407927544.459682.jpg

 

This is far from a dead horse.

[grayhawk]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Interesting thread. Good discussion. The part of this whole thing that trips me up is, there was no play on a runner until the batter kicks the ball. He didn't technically interfere with the catcher's ability to make a play on a runner..he CAUSED the catcher to have to make a play on a runner. I agree with @millerforrest that this might be a place to umpire by the spirit of the rule. I find it difficult to penalize the offense for R3's decision to run home after he saw the ball kick away from HP. Now if R3 broke for home on the original bounce away from F2, and THEN the batter kicks the ball while stepping away from the box, BI all day every day. 

 

Here's the problem. If you use that analysis, you are treating it akin to backswing interference (the only type of BI that has no out attached.) That is a very narrowly and intentionally defined part of BI, and if you're in FED, then you still have issues with outs. Now, I'm not saying that this isn't the "right" decision, but it's the one that has the smallest amount of traction in the rules, and opens a can of worms when it comes to other unintentional interference that is covered under 6.06c or 7.09c. 

 

I completely understand that. That's why I'm torn on my opinion here. I know the rules aren't always "fair'. But this seems like a case where we sort of have to read between the lines to come up with a decision, which is why I might lean to "spirit of the rule" here, and put R3 back at 3rd. Providing, of course, I was 100% sure R3 didn't break for home until after the kick. 

 

 

I'll throw this out for your aforementioned thought process: should it be R3 breaking, F2 attempting to field to make a play, or either?

 

Would you agree F2 isn't fielding to make a play unless R3 breaks? If F2 blocks the ball, batter kicks it, R3 does nothing but return to 3rd, we have nothing. So my logic tells me if R3 doesn't break until after the kick, kill it and send him back. If he broke for home before the kick, BI. 

 

Again...I have no rule to back me up, but giving that I don't see where the rules have anything 100% cut and dry on such a play, I'm thinking this might be a time to rule within the spirit of the rules.  

 

 

Let me rephrase...F2 goes for the ball to make a potential play or to hold the runner.

 

My scenario where I think I might have R3 return would be where F2's original block of the ball was enough to hold R3. Any movement from R3 towards home after the block, and then a kick, BI.  

 

 

Rich, I also interpreted the OP like this.  F2 does his job, blocks the pitch successfully, and R3 has not attempted to advance.  Batter, not seeing the ball, and thinking there may be a play, decides to clear the area and inadvertently kicks the ball (which has either stopped rolling, or will not roll more than a few more inches).  It's at this point that R3 sees that he has enough time to score and heads for home.

 

My original thought was that the "fairest" outcome would be to send R3 back, even though I couldn't point to a rule to support it.  If the only two choices are BI, and the runner being called out, or letting R3 score, then enforce the BI.

[Richvee]

 

 

 

Rich, I also interpreted the OP like this.  F2 does his job, blocks the pitch successfully, and R3 has not attempted to advance.  Batter, not seeing the ball, and thinking there may be a play, decides to clear the area and inadvertently kicks the ball (which has either stopped rolling, or will not roll more than a few more inches).  It's at this point that R3 sees that he has enough time to score and heads for home.

 

My original thought was that the "fairest" outcome would be to send R3 back, even though I couldn't point to a rule to support it.  If the only two choices are BI, and the runner being called out, or letting R3 score, then enforce the BI.

 

Given our interpretation of the OP, and ONLY this interp, The kick seems more like a batter interfering with a throw back to the pitcher than it does interfering with the catcher attempting to make a play. 

[Senor Azul]

The original poster, tiger79, gave us further details in post 29. In it he added that the pitch not only was in the dirt but inside as well, thus making the batter move. The batter didn't just move in violation of rule 6.06c, he moved to avoid being hit by the pitch in accordance with rule 6.08b. Doesn't that change your call on the play to nothing and allow the run?

[grayhawk]

The original poster, tiger79, gave us further details in post 29. In it he added that the pitch not only was in the dirt but inside as well, thus making the batter move. The batter didn't just move in violation of rule 6.06c, he moved to avoid being hit by the pitch in accordance with rule 6.08b. Doesn't that change your call on the play to nothing and allow the run?

 

If the batter kicked the ball as part of his movement to avoid the pitch, then I have nothing.  If the kick occurred as part of a separate movement, then he's liable for BI.

[Richvee]

 

The original poster, tiger79, gave us further details in post 29. In it he added that the pitch not only was in the dirt but inside as well, thus making the batter move. The batter didn't just move in violation of rule 6.06c, he moved to avoid being hit by the pitch in accordance with rule 6.08b. Doesn't that change your call on the play to nothing and allow the run?

 

If the batter kicked the ball as part of his movement to avoid the pitch, then I have nothing.  If the kick occurred as part of a separate movement, then he's liable for BI.

 

Post 29 gives a very different picture than the OP. (at least in my mind) Agree. Moving back to avoid a pitch at his ankles and the ball bounces off F2 then batter's foot, I'd have nothing as well.