Intentionally touching fair ball

[Willis]

OBR, R3, No outs.  Batter shows bunt and F5 charges towards plate.  Ball popped up over F5 and drops into fair territory near 3rd base line.  R3 returned to third thinking ball would be caught.  Ball is rolling towards the foul line with F5 and F6 standing near by, not making a play, but intending to let it roll foul so that the B/R would have to return to the plate.  When:

a.  R3, while standing on third, reaches down and touches the ball (still in fair territory)

b. R3 takes a step off third, touches the ball (still in fair territory), and jumps back on third

in neither case does R3 "kick" the ball or significantly change its path.  Is the ball fair in both cases and are both R3 and the B/R safe at third and first?

[beerguy55]

A batter/runner is out if he intentionally touches his batted ball to alter its course.

Though the runner rules don't technically include this provision, I see no reason why the spirit of the batter/runner rule could not and should not be extended to the runner.

I'd be surprised if there wasn't a case play for this.

[Rich Ives]

12 minutes ago, Willis said:

OBR, R3, No outs.  Batter shows bunt and F5 charges towards plate.  Ball popped up over F5 and drops into fair territory near 3rd base line.  R3 returned to third thinking ball would be caught.  Ball is rolling towards the foul line with F5 and F6 standing near by, not making a play, but intending to let it roll foul so that the B/R would have to return to the plate.  When:

a.  R3, while standing on third, reaches down and touches the ball (still in fair territory)

b. R3 takes a step off third, touches the ball (still in fair territory), and jumps back on third

in neither case does R3 "kick" the ball or significantly change its path.  Is the ball fair in both cases and are both R3 and the B/R safe at third and first?

R3 is out for intentionally interfering with a fair ball.  B-R gets 1B because he became a runner and didn't and would not have been put out.

[Willis]

I asked the question because the rule that governs interference with a fair ball, 6.01(a)(11) says: If, in the judgment of the umpire, the runner deliberately and intentionally kicks such a batted ball on which the infielder has missed a play, then the runner shall be called out for interference.  In my question, R3 doesn't "kick" the ball, and takes no action that makes fielding the ball more difficult for F5 or F6.  The other rules that cover intentionally touching a batted ball are in reference to breaking up double plays and therefore wouldn't apply to this situation.

There is also a rule that prevents the B/R from intentionally altering the course of a batted ball 5.09(a)(9) but that is specifically directed at the B/R on his way to first.  And 5.09(b)(3) prevents intentional interference with thrown balls and hindering fielders making plays on batted balls, but in this case the ball is batted and the fielders are intentionally not making a play on the ball so R3 can't hinder them.

I don't have the case books, but I can't find "intentionally interfering with a fair ball" to be a out beyond the "deliberately and intentionally kicks such a batted ball" reference above.  And I'd think that rule is to prevent a runner from intentionally making it more difficult for a fielder to continue a play on a ball they missed.

[yawetag]

4 minutes ago, Willis said:

In my question, R3 doesn't "kick" the ball, and takes no action that makes fielding the ball more difficult for F5 or F6.

Use "kick" as a placeholder for "touch." And his touch does adjust the possible outcome of the play.

[beerguy55]

8 minutes ago, Willis said:

I asked the question because the rule that governs interference with a fair ball, 6.01(a)(11) says: If, in the judgment of the umpire, the runner deliberately and intentionally kicks such a batted ball on which the infielder has missed a play, then the runner shall be called out for interference.  In my question, R3 doesn't "kick" the ball, and takes no action that makes fielding the ball more difficult for F5 or F6.  The other rules that cover intentionally touching a batted ball are in reference to breaking up double plays and therefore wouldn't apply to this situation.

There is also a rule that prevents the B/R from intentionally altering the course of a batted ball 5.09(a)(9) but that is specifically directed at the B/R on his way to first.  And 5.09(b)(3) prevents intentional interference with thrown balls and hindering fielders making plays on batted balls, but in this case the ball is batted and the fielders are intentionally not making a play on the ball so R3 can't hinder them.

I don't have the case books, but I can't find "intentionally interfering with a fair ball" to be a out beyond the "deliberately and intentionally kicks such a batted ball" reference above.  And I'd think that rule is to prevent a runner from intentionally making it more difficult for a fielder to continue a play on a ball they missed.

The easiest thing is to not get too caught up in the semantics of "kick"...I take it to mean "touches with his foot"....but frankly, wouldn't exclude him  bending over and picking it up with his hand either.   spirit vs letter

Touching the ball immediately determines its fair/foul status, so it influences the play.

[The Man in Blue]

My overly hyperbolic example: there is no rule saying you can’t punch the pitcher in the face either.  Doesn’t mean you can do it.

I have R3 out and the batter awarded first base in (a) and (b).

[WilsonFlyer]

And an immediate dead ball at the instant it's touched, would be my ruling as well.

[Senor Azul]

Sometimes it helps our understanding of a current rule to know the history of that rule. So, here is an excerpt from the book The Official Rules of Baseball Illustrated by David Nemec concerning the rule governing interference by a runner (Chapter 7, p. 108)--

“In the early days there were frequent debates over whether a runner should be declared out when a batted ball hit him since it often was an unavoidable accident. The first effort to address the problem was in 1872, when a rule was created that any player who designedly let a batted ball or thrown ball hit him was automatically out.

“In 1877 the rule became that any base runner, whether his action was by design or not, was out if he was struck by a batted ball before it had passed a fielder. The revision was necessary when it grew apparent that umpires could not be expected to judge whether a runner had intentionally let a ball hit him.”

***

So it would seem from 1877 that it was the intention of the rule makers to penalize the runner who is hit by a batted ball whether it was intentional (fielding the ball, for example) or unintentional. With that in mind, I think current rule 5.09(b)(7) is the rule that would govern the plays in the original post.

 

[Guest NJ Coach]

OK so let me tweak this scenario....based loaded tie game with 1 out in the bottom of the last inning.  Infielders all playing quite far in to protect against a game winning bunt RBI.  Batter squares to bunt and all infielders charge except the catcher.    The ball is bunted in the air down the baseline over the head of the charging first baseman and second baseman, and is outside the 'string.'  Realizing that if the ball is picked up by the defense they will lose since R3 will score,  they stay away and let the ball roll hoping it goes foul.   R1 sees that the defense is avoiding the ball hoping it rolls foul, stands in front of first base in fair territory and lets the ball hit his shoe rather than let the ball roll foul.

Is this interference ? Does R3 score ?

 

[maven]

11 minutes ago, Guest NJ Coach said:

Is this interference ?

Yes: intentionally contacting a ball to affect its fair/foul status.

11 minutes ago, Guest NJ Coach said:

Does R3 score ?

No: standard part of the runner INT penalty, all runners return.

[Jimurray]

4 hours ago, Guest NJ Coach said:

OK so let me tweak this scenario....based loaded tie game with 1 out in the bottom of the last inning.  Infielders all playing quite far in to protect against a game winning bunt RBI.  Batter squares to bunt and all infielders charge except the catcher.    The ball is bunted in the air down the baseline over the head of the charging first baseman and second baseman, and is outside the 'string.'  Realizing that if the ball is picked up by the defense they will lose since R3 will score,  they stay away and let the ball roll hoping it goes foul.   R1 sees that the defense is avoiding the ball hoping it rolls foul, stands in front of first base in fair territory and lets the ball hit his shoe rather than let the ball roll foul.

Is this interference ? Does R3 score ?

 

There is no string in OBR. Even with no intent R1 would be guilty of interference except there might be two exceptions in your sit that would absolve him of interference. The bunted ball might be considered to have gone through or by F3 and no other infielder had a play. PBUC has a chopper over the head of a charging F5 as going by him. We might consider the fly bunt over the head of F3 as the same. I think PBUC infers any reach by the fielder puts the batted ball as through or by so if the fly bunt was close enough for F5 to try to field it we could consider it through or by. Also PBUC would absolve R3 of unintentional interference if the fielders had a chance to field the ball and choose not to. 

Edited November 15, 2019 by Jimurray
Corrected R3 to R1 and F5 to F3

[Senor Azul]

Mr. Jimurray, is this another case of you didn’t RTWFT? And so soon after the other one! The second scenario raised by the poster NJ Coach involves a bunt over the head of a charging first baseman and the subsequent intentional interference by the runner at first base, R1 not R3 at third.

[Jimurray]

32 minutes ago, Senor Azul said:

Mr. Jimurray, is this another case of you didn’t RTWFT? And so soon after the other one! The second scenario raised by the poster NJ Coach involves a bunt over the head of a charging first baseman and the subsequent intentional interference by the runner at first base, R1 not R3 at third.

I did RTWFT but did not comprehend the switch to the other side of the diamond by NJ Coach so it would be a case of I didn't accurately RTFP. I understand his sit is intentional interference but his reference to a "string" suggests a lack of understanding of the OBR rule if the interference was unintentional. I'll correct my post.

[Senor Azul]

Mr. Jimurray, thanks for the clarification and edits to your first post. After all, we don’t want lurkers and newbies to misunderstand. I hope that one of the moderators sees your post and adds the two acronyms you coined to our master list of commonly used abbreviations.

From the 2016 BRD (section 336, p. 220): 

OBR Official Interpretation:  PBUC:  If defensive players have a chance to field a fair batted ball, but choose not to, and a runner is touched by the ball (while on base), the runner is not out.

Here’s the play from the 2014 PBUC (section 7.5, p. 72) that the interpretation is based on—

Play 11:  Runner on second base, no one out. Batter bunts fair down the third base line. Pitcher and third baseman hover over the ball and let it roll down the line toward third, hoping it will go foul. The ball continues to roll down the line in fair territory with the pitcher and third baseman following it. The ball ends up rolling to third base, strikes the base, and then strikes the runner from second base who is now standing on third.

Ruling 11:  Even though the ball has technically not passed a fielder, the ball is alive and in play because the fielders had an opportunity to field the batted ball but chose not to. The runner is not out in this situation.

[Jimurray]

3 hours ago, Senor Azul said:

Mr. Jimurray, thanks for the clarification and edits to your first post. After all, we don’t want lurkers and newbies to misunderstand. I hope that one of the moderators sees your post and adds the two acronyms you coined to our master list of commonly used abbreviations.

From the 2016 BRD (section 336, p. 220): 

OBR Official Interpretation:  PBUC:  If defensive players have a chance to field a fair batted ball, but choose not to, and a runner is touched by the ball (while on base), the runner is not out.

Here’s the play from the 2014 PBUC (section 7.5, p. 72) that the interpretation is based on—

Play 11:  Runner on second base, no one out. Batter bunts fair down the third base line. Pitcher and third baseman hover over the ball and let it roll down the line toward third, hoping it will go foul. The ball continues to roll down the line in fair territory with the pitcher and third baseman following it. The ball ends up rolling to third base, strikes the base, and then strikes the runner from second base who is now standing on third.

Ruling 11:  Even though the ball has technically not passed a fielder, the ball is alive and in play because the fielders had an opportunity to field the batted ball but chose not to. The runner is not out in this situation.

I wonder why this doesn’t apply to a runner not on the base. Which might be the case in the NJ Coaches tweak.  But do we still have a batted bunt on the fly that went over but through or by F3 with no other infielder able to make a play in NJ Coach’s sit if the interference would not have been intentional? Do we need a reach by F3 for the fly bunt?

[Guest Nj Coach]

OK so let me tweak this scenario....based loaded tie game with 1 out in the bottom of the last inning.  Infielders all playing quite far in to protect against a game winning bunt RBI.  Batter squares to bunt and all infielders charge except the catcher.    The ball is bunted in the air down the baseline over the head of the charging first baseman and second baseman, and is outside the 'string.'  Realizing that if the ball is picked up by the defense they will lose since R3 will score,  they stay away and let the ball roll hoping it goes foul.   R1 sees that the defense is avoiding the ball hoping it rolls foul, stands in front of first base in fair territory and lets the ball hit his shoe rather than let the ball roll foul.

Is this interference ? Does R3 score ?

 

[Guest Nj Coach]

Oops on repeating my question above...but yes, in my scenario, no fielder has a play as they all charged in to defend the bunt.   With the game in the balance, the defense had no choice but to intentionally not field the ball.   Can R3 let the ball roll into his foot since no fielders can make a play (and intentionally aren't) ?

[maven]

1 hour ago, Guest Nj Coach said:

Oops on repeating my question above...but yes, in my scenario, no fielder has a play as they all charged in to defend the bunt.   With the game in the balance, the defense had no choice but to intentionally not field the ball.   Can R3 let the ball roll into his foot since no fielders can make a play (and intentionally aren't) ?

The situation is irrelevant. Intentionally contacting a batted ball that has a chance to be fair is INT, with the usual attendant penalties.

[Senor Azul]

A runner cannot intentionally interfere with a fair batted ball. That was the original intent of the rule and it still is the intent of the rule [OBR rule 6.01(a)(11)]. Other rules make it illegal for a runner to intentionally interfere with a fielder or a throw as mentioned by the OP Willis. Even though it is not recent, perhaps the following anecdote from Wikipedia illustrates best how this rule has always included intentional actions by the runner.  

In a game against the Milwaukee Braves on April 21 (1957), (Don) Hoak was involved in a controversial play that would lead to a change in the rules. He was on second base and teammate Gus Bell was on first, when Wally Post hit a ground ball to short. Hoak broke up a potential double play by fielding the ball himself and flipping it to Milwaukee shortstop Johnny Logan. Hoak was called out for interference, but Post was given a single on the play. The day before, Johnny Temple let Bell's ground ball hit him with the same result, Temple being called out for interference and Bell being awarded a single. The two incidents prompted league presidents Warren Giles and Will Harridge to jointly announce a rule change that declared both the runner and batter out if the runner intentionally interferes with a batted ball, with no runners allowed to advance. (Without the new rule, it was sometimes advantageous for a runner to touch a batted ball, because doing so avoided a double play. In the plays already mentioned, Temple and Hoak were out according to a still-existing rule: a runner is out if a batted ball touches him in fair territory before it touches a fielder, with the batter getting a single and no runner advancing unless forced.)