D3K and the dropped bat

[Mudisfun]

Working solo last night 18U 9 inning TB game using FED although I refuse to use their runner designations :-)

R3/R1 2 outs. What I see is pitch come, swing, miss, pitch in the dirt which careens off of F2, rebounds into the leg of B/R and then shoots off towards the first base dug out. I give the D3K signal and clear home by stepping back and to the slight right as I know R3 is coming in but there is no chance for a play there but I need to see him touch/tag the plate as well as try and line up for R/L violation on the throw from F2. Runner beats the throw by a couple feet so no real play at 1st. R1 easily moves to 3rd on the play.

Coach asks for time and asks me what the ruling is on the bat. Bat? What bat? Coach states that the B/R tossed his bat while running to 1st and the ball bounced off it (completely in foul territory if it matters) which caused a delay on F2 making his play as the ball bounced off it. I am assuming he meant the bat struck the ball versus the bat was inert on the ground and the ball then hit the bat. I told the coach what I had which was pitch, swing, miss, dirt, bounce off catcher then B/R and that I did not see the bat hit the ball. He was calm, cool and collected; just said I think you missed it but OK, lets play so no issue here...

Looking in the book all I find close to this is 7-3-6 If a whole bat is thrown and interferes with a defensive player attempting a play, interference will be called. Can this ruling be applied to a D3K as it is not a batted ball? I know I lost what occurred as I made sure to see R3 touch home and was screened out by the B/R and catcher as they both took off so how do I handle this better in the future? What positioning advice would you give? I definitely wanted to make sure I had the touch at home since missing that on an appeal would be bad so I think maybe I gave that too high of a priority but seeing the touch only took my attention off the ball for a moment.

Thoughts?

Batter was a R/H batter if that matters.

Thanks!

[maven]

Working solo last night 18U 9 inning TB game using FED although I refuse to use their runner designations :-)

Looking in the book all I find close to this is 7-3-6 If a whole bat is thrown and interferes with a defensive player attempting a play, interference will be called. Can this ruling be applied to a D3K as it is not a batted ball? I know I lost what occurred as I made sure to see R3 touch home and was screened out by the B/R and catcher as they both took off so how do I handle this better in the future? What positioning advice would you give? I definitely wanted to make sure I had the touch at home since missing that on an appeal would be bad so I think maybe I gave that too high of a priority but seeing the touch only took my attention off the ball for a moment.

Thoughts?

Batter was a R/H batter if that matters.

Thanks!

My thoughts:

1. Working solo 18U? Well that's just asking for trouble....
2. No, the rule you cite does not apply here. In your play, F2 is chasing a misplayed pitched ball, and he doesn't get the protection afforded by the rule governing interference with a batted ball.
3. You seem to have prioritized R3's touch over action by the BR and the ball. Working solo, I think I would ignore R3's touch (did you see R1's touch at 2B?) and RLI and focus on the BR, F2, and the ball.

[Richvee]

7.3.5 SITUATION I:

With a runner on third base and one out, B3 receives ball four for a base on balls. B3 takes several steps toward first base and then realizes he is still holding onto the bat. With his dugout on the third base side, he stops and tosses the bat in front of home plate towards his bench. As he tosses the bat, F2 throws the ball to third in an attempt to put out R1. The ball contacts the bat in mid-air and is deflected into dead-ball territory.

RULING: The ball is dead. Interference is declared on the batter. If R1 had been attempting to steal home, R1 would be declared out and B3 awarded first base on the base on balls. If R1 was attempting to return to third base on the play, B3 is declared out for the interference. (7-3-5)

While it's not exactly the same, the main jist from this case play is the batter is responsible for his bat and actions involving what he does with the bat after the at bat. At least in FED. I think a strong case can be made for INT on the BR and getting the out on the BR

ART. 5 . . . Interfere with the catcher's fielding or throwing by:

 

c. making any other movement, including follow-through interference, which hinders actions at home plate or the catcher's attempt to play on a runner, or...

 

PENALTY: When there are two outs, the batter is out. .......

Edited November 10, 2015 by Richvee

[maven]

Rich, that's not the case you want. You want this one:

7.3.6 SITUATION: In hitting a slow roller to F5, the (a) whole bat slips out of his hands and interferes with F5 or (b) his bat breaks and hits the ball or F5 as F5 attempts to field the ball.

RULING: In (a), the ball is dead immediately. B1 is declared out for interference, because B1 is responsible for controlling his bat and not allowing it to interfere with a defensive player attempting a play. In (b), there is no penalty and the ball remains live.

Now that I've strengthened your case, I have to rebut it.

The play in 7.3.6 involves the bat hindering the fielder who is making a play. In the OP, in contrast, the bat, on the ground, is hit by the misplayed pitch. The ball then rolls farther from F2, who has to go farther to field it. That's not INT with a fielder. The umpire should signal "safe," announce "That's nothing!" and play on.

[Richvee]

Rich, that's not the case you want. You want this one:

Now that I've strengthened your case, I have to rebut it.

The play in 7.3.6 involves the bat hindering the fielder who is making a play. In the OP, in contrast, the bat, on the ground, is hit by the misplayed pitch. The ball then rolls farther from F2, who has to go farther to field it. That's not INT with a fielder. The umpire should signal "safe," announce "That's nothing!" and play on.

Thanks

From the OP.... "I am assuming he meant the bat struck the ball versus the bat was inert on the ground and the ball then hit the bat."

If the bat is laying there and the ball hits it, I'm 100% with you. That's nothing. However, in the OP, I'm picturing a ball trickling away and as F2 is retrieving it, the BR tosses the bat and the rolling bat knocks into the ball. Would that change your ruling from "That's nothing" to "That's INT"? Or do you think it's nothing regardless?

[noumpere]

 

1. You seem to have prioritized R3's touch over action by the BR and the ball. Working solo, I think I would ignore R3's touch (did you see R1's touch at 2B?) and RLI and focus on the BR, F2, and the ball.

I especially agree with point 3 -- the purpose of the rule is to be sure the runners run 360' before scoring -- R3 did that.  Since there wasn't any tag attempted, who really cares if he touches the plate?  (in this situation, with all the other stuff going on).

 

On the OP -- isn't there some case where the ball hits the BR after a D3k?  That's nothing -- and I'd use it to have nothing in the OP, assuming there wasn't any intent, of course.

[maven]

On the OP -- isn't there some case where the ball hits the BR after a D3k?  That's nothing -- and I'd use it to have nothing in the OP, assuming there wasn't any intent, of course.

I seem to recall such a case, but my (slightly more than cursory) search did not locate it.

[maven]

I think the different rulings in these 2 case plays are instructive about this play.

8.4.1 SITUATION H: B1 swings and misses a pitch for strike three. As F2 is attempting to catch the pitch, B1 hits F2 with the bat on the follow-through, hindering F2's attempt to catch the ball.

RULING: B1 is out for interference.

 

8.4.1 SITUATION I: B1 swings and misses a pitch for strike three. The ball ricochets from F2's mitt and rolls several feet down the first-base line in fair territory. As F2 goes for the ball, B1 accidently kicks or steps on the ball.

RULING: If, in the judgment of the umpire, B1 did not intentionally interfere, then the ball remains alive and the play stands.

These cases illustrate the distinction between the batter hindering with the fielder, which need not be intentional to count as INT, and the batter contacting the ball (which does need to be intentional to count as INT).

The rationale for the difference is that the defense, not the offense (as on a batted ball) is responsible for the ball being where it is. If they don't want the batter unintentionally contacting the ball, then they can catch the damn pitch.

If the batter can unintentionally kick the ball without being guilty of INT, I would rule the same for unintentionally having the bat contact the ball.

[Richvee]

I think the different rulings in these 2 case plays are instructive about this play.

These cases illustrate the distinction between the batter hindering with the fielder, which need not be intentional to count as INT, and the batter contacting the ball (which does need to be intentional to count as INT).

The rationale for the difference is that the defense, not the offense (as on a batted ball) is responsible for the ball being where it is. If they don't want the batter unintentionally contacting the ball, then they can catch the damn pitch.

If the batter can unintentionally kick the ball without being guilty of INT, I would rule the same for unintentionally having the bat contact the ball.

I disagree. Running to 1st and unintentionally  stepping on the ball is not the same as tossing the bat that makes contact with the ball F2 is trying to field. I still contend 7.3.5 SIT I  and 7.3.6 both imply the batter is responsible for the bat if he tosses it, or even if it slips out of his hand. 

[maven]

I disagree. Running to 1st and unintentionally  stepping on the ball is not the same as tossing the bat that makes contact with the ball F2 is trying to field. I still contend 7.3.5 SIT I  and 7.3.6 both imply the batter is responsible for the bat if he tosses it, or even if it slips out of his hand. 

Rich: responsible for his bat doing what?

Both of your cases involve the bat hindering a fielder making a play: one on a batted ball, and one throwing a ball to retire a runner.

Neither is an instance of contacting a misplayed pitched ball. It makes a difference.

[Richvee]

Rich: responsible for his bat doing what?

Both of your cases involve the bat hindering a fielder making a play: one on a batted ball, and one throwing a ball to retire a runner.

Neither is an instance of contacting a misplayed pitched ball. It makes a difference.

I get that. And I don't necessarily disagree with you. You make a strong argument. You might very well be right. I'd love to hear from others on this. If I'm alone on this then I'm flat out wrong, and that's OK.

I'm basing my thought process here on the case plays mentioned, and the overall underlying fact that FED has stricter rules on a batter controlling his bat after his swing as evident by the fact that they want  the batter called out, just like BI, on"Follow through" INT.

Like I said, I can be persuaded. Love to hear from other FED guys on this.

 

[grayhawk]

I get that. And I don't necessarily disagree with you. You make a strong argument. You might very well be right. I'd love to hear from others on this. If I'm alone on this then I'm flat out wrong, and that's OK.

I'm basing my thought process here on the case plays mentioned, and the overall underlying fact that FED has stricter rules on a batter controlling his bat after his swing as evident by the fact that they want  the batter called out, just like BI, on"Follow through" INT.

Like I said, I can be persuaded. Love to hear from other FED guys on this.

 

I think both of you make excellent points, and in this case I feel that since intent is necessary for a BR to interfere with a U3K with his body that it should probably extend to his bat as well.  The defense has had a chance to field the pitch cleanly and failed.  The batter shouldn't be held responsible for inadvertently discarding his bat and that bat hitting the ball which was misplayed.  I will say this, however.  A batter that flings his bat in such a way as to knock the ball far enough away from F2 that he can't make a play will be much more likely, in my mind, to have done so intentionally.  There's no reason to fling a bat like that.

[ScubaUmp]

I agree with maven no INT. That's Nothing safe signal

" I give the D3K signal and clear home by stepping back and to the slight right as I know R3 is coming in but there is no chance for a play there but I need to see him touch/tag the plate as well as try and line up for R/L violation on the throw from F2. Runner beats the throw by a couple feet so no real play at 1st. R1 easily moves to 3rd on the play."

As described above I'd like to take that play in foul territory, chest to ball near the first base fair line close enough to the plate for a read step 3rd base extended for possible play at the plate. Head on a swivel ball/f2 -bat- R3. see the touch or no touch at home, read step towards first base for R/L, overthrow, pulled foot swipe tag. Thoughts?

 

Edited November 10, 2015 by ScubaUmp
spelling

[ricka56]

I think both of you make excellent points, and in this case I feel that since intent is necessary for a BR to interfere with a U3K with his body that it should probably extend to his bat as well. 

Interference with a U3K does extent to his bat:
7.3.5 SITUATION F: With R1 on third, one out and two strikes on B3, B3 swings at and misses the pitch. The ball bounces off F2’s glove into the air, where it is hit by B3’s follow-through. The ball rolls to the back stop. B3 reaches first base safely and R1 scores. RULING: The ball is dead immediately. B3 is out for interference and R1 returns to third base. A batter is entitled to an uninterrupted opportunity to hit the ball, just as the catcher is entitled to an uninterrupted opportunity to field the ball. Once the batter swings, he is responsible for his follow-through.

 

[grayhawk]

Interference with a U3K does extent to his bat:
7.3.5 SITUATION F: With R1 on third, one out and two strikes on B3, B3 swings at and misses the pitch. The ball bounces off F2’s glove into the air, where it is hit by B3’s follow-through. The ball rolls to the back stop. B3 reaches first base safely and R1 scores. RULING: The ball is dead immediately. B3 is out for interference and R1 returns to third base. A batter is entitled to an uninterrupted opportunity to hit the ball, just as the catcher is entitled to an uninterrupted opportunity to field the ball. Once the batter swings, he is responsible for his follow-through.

 

Not the same thing. In the OP, the catcher had an uninterrupted opportunity to field the ball (pitch) and failed. It was after he misplayed the pitch that the bat hit the ball.

[ricka56]

Not the same thing. In the OP, the catcher had an uninterrupted opportunity to field the ball (pitch) and failed. It was after he misplayed the pitch that the bat hit the ball.

I guess that would depend on when an "uninterrupted opportunity" ends. In the CB 7.3.5F, F2 also misplays an U3K, yet he is protected after the the misplay when the bat contacts the ball, as in the OP. 

[ricka56]

I hated reading 7.3.5F (after I had that play and ruled that it was nothing). I also thought that F2 had had his opportunity to field the ball and B shouldn't be held responsible for F2 deflecting the ball into B's follow-through, but there it was in black and white. I really don't know what the correct Fed ruling should be in the OP. It says in 7.3.5F that B is responsible for his follow-through, which means he is responsible for what his bat does after he swung/missed. I really don't know when that bat control responsibility ends.   

[grayhawk]

I hated reading 7.3.5F (after I had that play and ruled that it was nothing). I also thought that F2 had had his opportunity to field the ball and B shouldn't be held responsible for F2 deflecting the ball into B's follow-through, but there it was in black and white. I really don't know what the correct Fed ruling should be in the OP. It says in 7.3.5F that B is responsible for his follow-through, which means he is responsible for what his bat does after he swung/missed. I really don't know when that bat control responsibility ends.   

That makes two of us.

[noumpere]

Note that OBR would also have this play as "backswing INT" (even though the specific penalty between the two is different, both judge it consistently with all other "backswing INT calls"

[Mudisfun]

Sorry for dropping this and then bailing but I have been traveling this week.

So to clarify the batter and his swing had nothing to do with the events. There was no back swing issues at all. The coach stated the batter tossed his bat after a step or so out of the box thus the ball striking the bat. All of this occurred in 2-3 seconds of course and since I did not see that one event my ruling was nothing. Also when B/R and F2 went running they took off in the direction of 1st but although they were not on the same course I was blocked out for a second or so. Also I am not positive that he was inferring the bat was on the ground and the ball then struck the bat where it sat... 

To Mavens point, 18U solo... yep. But out here HS ball through JV is typically solo so this event is likely to come up again in the future. Looking back I think moving father back which would open up my viewing angle for the touch at home and moving more towards the 1st base fencing may have helped give me a better angle on the play especially the runner and F2 interaction.

Thank you all for your thoughts and feedback. I love this site.

 

[Replacematt]

Sorry for dropping this and then bailing but I have been traveling this week.

So to clarify the batter and his swing had nothing to do with the events. There was no back swing issues at all. The coach stated the batter tossed his bat after a step or so out of the box thus the ball striking the bat. All of this occurred in 2-3 seconds of course and since I did not see that one event my ruling was nothing. Also when B/R and F2 went running they took off in the direction of 1st but although they were not on the same course I was blocked out for a second or so. Also I am not positive that he was inferring the bat was on the ground and the ball then struck the bat where it sat... 

To Mavens point, 18U solo... yep. But out here HS ball through JV is typically solo so this event is likely to come up again in the future. Looking back I think moving father back which would open up my viewing angle for the touch at home and moving more towards the 1st base fencing may have helped give me a better angle on the play especially the runner and F2 interaction.

Thank you all for your thoughts and feedback. I love this site.

 

Don't move to your right, move to your left to 1BLX. That'll put you in best position to see RLI and a foot pulled from either side of 1B. 

[noumpere]

Don't move to your right, move to your left to 1BLX. That'll put you in best position to see RLI and a foot pulled from either side of 1B. 

I think I would just go right down the line a few steps.  You can't go too far because there was an R1 and a potential play at third.  Rule on nay play at first and then start moving toward third for any play there -- probably only getting a few steps closer.

[Replacematt]

I think I would just go right down the line a few steps.  You can't go too far because there was an R1 and a potential play at third.  Rule on nay play at first and then start moving toward third for any play there -- probably only getting a few steps closer.

That puts a runner behind you. Even if the touch/no touch isn't a priority, you still need to at least have a chance to see it, if for nothing else to keep the offense honest.

I think you're not visualizing the play correctly...the potential issue with the lead runner is at home.

Edited November 12, 2015 by Matt

[KenBAZ]

I'd like to open up and allow F2 to move toward 1BL. I'd want to stay on the ball while backing up to 1BLX. Glance at the the two runners for touches while saying on the ball and the play at 1B. After R3 scored I'd move out into the working area in front of HP, watch the ball and be aware of a possible play on my two remaining runners. "Coach I don't have the batter throwing his bat at the ball". Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

[noumpere]

That puts a runner behind you. Even if the touch/no touch isn't a priority, you still need to at least have a chance to see it, if for nothing else to keep the offense honest.

I think you're not visualizing the play correctly...the potential issue with the lead runner is at home.

I'm assuming that there's NO possibility of a play on R3.  In that case, yes -- I give up the look at the plate (when working solo).