Ball 4, potential INT, steal...

[scrounge]

So this happened last night, and I feel silly because I *should* know it, but can't quite remember or find it.

HS varsity scrimmage, R2, outs immaterial. Batter gets ball 4, which bounces off F2 and up the 1B line. R2 is stealing on the play, but with a late jump after seeing the ball get away. I was BU so didn't get a great look as I switched between looking at runner, 3B, and play, but partner said later that ball got between B/R's feet, preventing F2 from grabbing it to throw to 3B, as he headed to 1B. He didn't call anything but thought later it should have been INT. The B/R didn't touch the ball, just was in the way as he trotted to 1B on the walk.

I know that if it was a batted ball, we have the case that says that as long as there is no intentional INT, this is a big bag of nothing. But this wasn't a batted ball but rather a mis-fielded pitch that caromed off the catcher. The B/R didn't do anything abnormal as best I can tell/heard, but was in the way unintentionally.

Even though 95% of the ball in our area is FED, posted in this section to get rulings in all codes out of curiosity.

 

Edited to clarify that ball didn't hit B/R

[noumpere]

2 minutes ago, scrounge said:

I know that if it was a batted ball, we have the case that says that as long as there is no intentional INT, this is a big bag of nothing.

I think you have the rulings backwards.  On a batted ball, it's INT.  On a mis-played pitch, it's nothing (absent intent).  That's for FED.  OBR is slightly different on the latter (more likely to be INT)

[scrounge]

26 minutes ago, noumpere said:

I think you have the rulings backwards.  On a batted ball, it's INT.  On a mis-played pitch, it's nothing (absent intent).  That's for FED.  OBR is slightly different on the latter (more likely to be INT)

Indeed, upon relooking, I found the relevant case. Not sure how I missed it last night....though admittedly multitasking with that and WVU-Gonzaga.

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.

 

However, regarding the batted ball, what about this case?

8.1.1 SITUATION R:

B1 hits a fair ball in front of home plate. Both the batter-runner and catcher make contact while trying to complete their respective responsibilities.

RULING: If either player attempts to alter the play, interference or obstruction shall be called depending on who violates the rule. If neither player attempts to alter the play, no call shall be made.

 

[noumpere]

7 minutes ago, scrounge said:

However, regarding the batted ball, what about this case?

8.1.1 SITUATION R:

B1 hits a fair ball in front of home plate. Both the batter-runner and catcher make contact while trying to complete their respective responsibilities.

RULING: If either player attempts to alter the play, interference or obstruction shall be called depending on who violates the rule. If neither player attempts to alter the play, no call shall be made.

 

That's the BR and the FIELDER making contact.  The OP is the BR and the BALL making contact.  Different rules apply.

[scrounge]

1 minute ago, noumpere said:

That's the BR and the FIELDER making contact.  The OP is the BR and the BALL making contact.  Different rules apply.

Oh, sorry, I wasn't terribly clear in the OP....I don't think the B/R hit the ball, just was in the way of F2 from picking it up to throw to 3B for the steal....will edit the OP to clarify

[maven]

It doesn't much matter in the case whether the batter (accidentally) touched the ball, the ball touched the batter, or F2 was hindered by the batter (BR, in fact). If F2 wanted to play on R2 stealing, then catch the damn pitch. I'm not bailing out the defense for poor play by F2.

Even OBR, where the bar for INT is somewhat lower than for FED, envisions the BR doing something that hinders the defense. His mere presence on the field (as an obstacle to F2 trying to get the ball) is not INT, because he's not expected to disappear.

The difference would come up in the case where the BR accidentally kicked the ball away from F2. In OBR, that's INT; in FED, play the bounce (as in 8.4.1I).

Case play 8.1.1R is just tangle/untangle: not INT until it becomes intentional, and that's an exception to the usual rule about runner INT with a protected fielder.

[Senor Azul]

From the 2016 BRD (section 290, p. 190): 

OBR Official Interpretation:  Wendelstedt:  After ball four, a batter becomes a runner. Since the ball is not batted, any hindrance that occurs on the catcher or the catcher’s throw must be intentional for interference to be called.

[noumpere]

2 hours ago, Senor Azul said:

From the 2016 BRD (section 290, p. 190): 

 

OBR Official Interpretation:  Wendelstedt:  After ball four, a batter becomes a runner. Since the ball is not batted, any hindrance that occurs on the catcher or the catcher’s throw must be intentional for interference to be called.

 

I think this is when F2 is not trying to throw out a stealing R2 (for example).  I'm not sure it's relevant to the play9s) being discussed.

[Mudisfun]

I am with @maven on this one... ball 4 so the batter has an awarded base ... R2 is stealing but F1 throws a bad pitch which F2 cannot handle and it ends up between the feet of the batter? So what. Change this scenario and make it ball 2... the batter is standing there and the ball gets in between his feet... as long as the batter does not do anything I would expect him to do or he intentionally interferes then that is nothing. I do not see ball 4 changing this at all. The batter is not going to just teleport to 1st, he is going to be standing there for a couple moments unless he intentionally does something to hinder F2 I am not bailing him out.