Reminder to watch the Players, not the ball

[Velho]

Hi. My name is Rob, and I'm a ball watcher. I've been clean for 2 weeks but the temptation is strong. Plays like these remind me to keep working.

[noumpere]

BR gets hit by a batted ball.  Why is that "the most improbably thing that has ever happened on a baseball field?"

[The Man in Blue]

I think the more improbable piece was the fielder catching it.

[noumpere]

5 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

I think the more improbable piece was the fielder catching it.

Wasn't a Catch.

[grayhawk]

That ball is very likely to become fair. Interference on the batter. He's out and runners return.

[The Man in Blue]

8 hours ago, noumpere said:

Wasn't a Catch.

Well, no, not a technical capital C Catch, but he physically small c caught it.  

[grayhawk]

5 hours ago, grayhawk said:

That ball is very likely to become fair. Interference on the batter. He's out and runners return.

I may be wrong on this. I was trying to find a rule cite but cannot. Anyone know where to find it?

[BigBlue4u]

12 minutes ago, grayhawk said:

I may be wrong on this. I was trying to find a rule cite but cannot. Anyone know where to find it?

G.H.  Here's the NFHS Rule:  7-4-1-i

[grayhawk]

G.H.  Here's the NFHS Rule:  7-4-1-i

Thank you. That rule requires intent, so in the video it’s not interference.

[Velho]

44 minutes ago, grayhawk said:

50 minutes ago, BigBlue4u said:

G.H.  Here's the NFHS Rule:  7-4-1-i

Thank you. That rule requires intent, so in the video it’s not interference.

Why do we need fair or foul distinction if we're going down that path (i.e. skipping the possibility it may well have been fair when it contacted BR)?

If we're doing NFHS: 

ART. 1 . . . Offensive interference is an act (physical or verbal) by the team at bat:

1. which interferes with, obstructs, impedes, hinders or confuses any fielder

   attempting to make a play;

[grayhawk]

Why do we need fair or foul distinction if we're going down that path (i.e. skipping the possibility it may well have been fair when it contacted BR)?
If we're doing NFHS: 
ART. 1 . . . Offensive interference is an act (physical or verbal) by the team at bat:

1. which interferes with, obstructs, impedes, hinders or confuses any fielder
   attempting to make a play;
   

Because the specific overrules the general. We have a specific cite that says when a batter-runner deflects a batted ball that has a chance to become fair, it’s only interference if he does it intentionally.

[The Man in Blue]

I can’t tell for certain, but I’ll just toss this one in the ring: he’s still in the batter’s box.  Dead ball, foul ball?

(I’m not sure if he is or not.  Looks as if he is, but he may have left the box and come back.  I can’t tell.)

[noumpere]

Is this a case where "willful indifference" = "intent?"

 

[grayhawk]

4 hours ago, noumpere said:

Is this a case where "willful indifference" = "intent?"

 

Hard to cross that bridge, but this should be interference. If not for the batter standing there, where he has no business being, that ball falls untouched and bounces fair. The only way one could defend making it a foul ball would be to say that if he had done what he was supposed to do, he would have easily reached first, so calling it foul is an “even Steven” way of handling it. 

[noumpere]

Does F2 pull his hand back as he's turning around because he sees B1 in the way?  Or, is he just giving up on the play?

 

(I agree he misjudged the ball from the beginning.)

[BigBlue4u]

9 hours ago, grayhawk said:

If not for the batter standing there, where he has no business being,

Question:  What would one expect the batter to do if he did not know the location of the ball?

[grayhawk]

21 minutes ago, BigBlue4u said:

Question:  What would one expect the batter to do if he did not know the location of the ball?

Run to first.

[JSam21]

On 6/29/2024 at 4:24 PM, grayhawk said:

I may be wrong on this. I was trying to find a rule cite but cannot. Anyone know where to find it?

That requires intent on a ball that may become fair. 

[JSam21]

21 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

I can’t tell for certain, but I’ll just toss this one in the ring: he’s still in the batter’s box.  Dead ball, foul ball?

(I’m not sure if he is or not.  Looks as if he is, but he may have left the box and come back.  I can’t tell.)

The batter has vacated the box and then re-enters it. I would think that vacates his protection.

[grayhawk]

1 hour ago, JSam21 said:

The batter has vacated the box and then re-enters it. I would think that vacates his protection.

Once the ball is hit, why would he have any protection (other than immediately after the ball leaves the bat, such as on a bunt that hits him or his bat while still legally in the box)? Let's say the batter stays there on a high pop up and gets hit in the front part of the box (where it's a fair ball), why would we NOT call him out for getting hit with a fair batted ball? He had every opportunity to do what he was supposed to do - run to 1B. Again, the rules governing getting hit in the box are clearly there because of the close proximity of the ball to the batter immediately after hitting the ball, not for situations where the batter had ample opportunity to leave the box.

[JSam21]

9 hours ago, grayhawk said:

Once the ball is hit, why would he have any protection (other than immediately after the ball leaves the bat, such as on a bunt that hits him or his bat while still legally in the box)? Let's say the batter stays there on a high pop up and gets hit in the front part of the box (where it's a fair ball), why would we NOT call him out for getting hit with a fair batted ball? He had every opportunity to do what he was supposed to do - run to 1B. Again, the rules governing getting hit in the box are clearly there because of the close proximity of the ball to the batter immediately after hitting the ball, not for situations where the batter had ample opportunity to leave the box.

Honestly, because that is how the rule is written. It doesn't distinguish between the batter being hit by the ball immediately or with a delay. In reality the only "requirement" for the batter to advance is when dealing with a tangle/untangle. 
 

[RBIbaseball]

I have interference.

 

In my mind once a batter is negligent in doing what a batter should be doing, I infer that as INTENT to be in the wrong place (he didn't accidently/unknowingly stay in the box), which led to the interference.

Ie. he should have ran to first

 

Am I wrong on equating/lumping in negligence to intent ? Honest question.

[834k3r]

5 hours ago, RBIbaseball said:

I have interference.

 

In my mind once a batter is negligent in doing what a batter should be doing, I infer that as INTENT to be in the wrong place (he didn't accidently/unknowingly stay in the box), which led to the interference.

Ie. he should have ran to first

 

Am I wrong on equating/lumping in negligence to intent ? Honest question.

I agree; INT here. Batter's out, all runners return. However, for FED I think it's "normal" INT, rather than 7-4-1-i as mentioned originally. I have INT by hindering (intentional or unintentional, doesn't matter) F2 fielding the ball (2-21-1-a).

[JSam21]

5 hours ago, RBIbaseball said:

I have interference.

 

In my mind once a batter is negligent in doing what a batter should be doing, I infer that as INTENT to be in the wrong place (he didn't accidently/unknowingly stay in the box), which led to the interference.

Ie. he should have ran to first

 

Am I wrong on equating/lumping in negligence to intent ? Honest question.

I think the only time we can do that is under tangle/untangle when there is an actual requirement for the batter-runner to be advancing to absolve themselves of interference.

 

[JSam21]

2 minutes ago, 834k3r said:

I agree; INT here. Batter's out, all runners return. However, for FED I think it's "normal" INT, rather than 7-4-1-i as mentioned originally. I have INT by hindering (intentional or unintentional, doesn't matter) F2 fielding the ball (2-21-1-a).

So this is an honest question, because I've seen many people give the same answer as you. What exactly are you seeing that shows you that F2 has been hindered in any way here?

 

I'm seeing F2 giving up on a ball that he knows that he isn't going to be able to field. He is still a good distance away from the batter and had his back turned to him the entire time. He has no clue where the batter is.