Batter Kicks 3rd strike away

Your thought process is backwards. Who screwed up here? The defense...twice. F1 throw a pitch in the dirt and F2 misplayed it. Why should the offense be punished, when, in your description("inadvertenly"), the batter/runner did nothing wrong?

One of the resources that clarifies the rules is the Major League Baseball Umpires Manual. Here's what it says.
6.11 Batter interferes after a third strike not caught
OBR 7.09(a) provides that the batter-runner be called out for interference if "after a third strike he hinders the catcher in his attempt to field the ball."

Play: First base unoccupied or two out. Strike three not caught. B-R unintentionally kicks, touches, or otherwise deflects the pitched ball that was not caught by the catcher. Catcher is unable to make a play.

Ruling: If this occurs in the vicinity of home plate, the ball is alive and in play. However, if this occurs up the first base line (where the B-R has had time to avoid the ball), interference is called, the B-R is declared out, and runners return to base occupied at the time of the pitch.

So in your play, interference is not called.

quote:

Originally posted by 3FingeredGlove:
One of the resources that clarifies the rules is the Major League Baseball Umpires Manual. Here's what it says.
6.11 Batter interferes after a third strike not caught
OBR 7.09(a) provides that the batter-runner be called out for interference if "after a third strike he hinders the catcher in his attempt to field the ball."

Play: First base unoccupied or two out. Strike three not caught. B-R unintentionally kicks, touches, or otherwise deflects the pitched ball that was not caught by the catcher. Catcher is unable to make a play.

Ruling: If this occurs in the vicinity of home plate, the ball is alive and in play. However, if this occurs up the first base line (where the B-R has had time to avoid the ball), interference is called, the B-R is declared out, and runners return to base occupied at the time of the pitch.

So in your play, interference is not called.

This covers a play in which the catcher simply does not catch the ball. Modern practice is to extend the distance up the baseline when the catcher adds additional momentum to the missed pitch by it bouncing off his body or him kicking it.

Um,
The quote is from the MLBUM and it is the very definition of modern practice. If, in the umpires judgement, the B-R had enough time to avoid the ball, whether it rebounded or was kicked by the catcher, then the contact with the ball is intentional. That is interference. Intentional contact with any thrown, or deemed to be thrown, ball is interference.

The umpire get the big bucks for determining whether the contact was intentional.

quote:

Originally posted by 3FingeredGlove:
Um,
The quote is from the MLBUM and it is the very definition of modern practice. If, in the umpires judgement, the B-R had enough time to avoid the ball, whether it rebounded or was kicked by the catcher, then the contact with the ball is intentional. That is interference. Intentional contact with any thrown, or deemed to be thrown, ball is interference.

The umpire get the big bucks for determining whether the contact was intentional.

I am very familiar with the MLBUM, its purpose, what it contains and what it doesn't. I am also familiar with professional practice.

In practice, if F2 added impetus to the pitch (which is not covered in the MLBUM passage you cite0, and the B/R's contact was unintentional, his protection from being called out on interference will not be confined to the home plate area.

quote:

In practice, if F2 added impetus to the pitch (which is not covered in the MLBUM passage you cite0, and the B/R's contact was unintentional, his protection from being called out on interference will not be confined to the home plate area.

Isn't the operative question here actually whether or not the baserunner had time to avoid the ball, not whether or not it was "intentional?"

That is, ball bounces off shin guard, up first base line. Runner has plenty of time to avoid it, but doesn't see the ball and so unintentionally kicks it away.

He'd be out, right?

quote:

Originally posted by Jimmy03:
Your thought process is backwards. Who screwed up here? The defense...twice. F1 throw a pitch in the dirt and F2 misplayed it. Why should the offense be punished, when, in your description("inadvertenly"), the batter/runner did nothing wrong?

So if the count was 0-2 and the pitcher got the hitter to swing at a curve ball in the dirt and the catcher blocked it and kept it in front, they both screwed up?? Wow, I need to rethink some of the things I do as a coach!!

quote:

Originally posted by JMW37:

quote:

Originally posted by Jimmy03:
Your thought process is backwards. Who screwed up here? The defense...twice. F1 throw a pitch in the dirt and F2 misplayed it. Why should the offense be punished, when, in your description("inadvertenly"), the batter/runner did nothing wrong?

So if the count was 0-2 and the pitcher got the hitter to swing at a curve ball in the dirt and the catcher blocked it and kept it in front, they both screwed up?? Wow, I need to rethink some of the things I do as a coach!!

The only thing I see you need to do is make relevant comparisons.

The theory behind punishing the team the caused the problem is as old as baseball, football, basketball, lacrosse...etc.

quote:

Originally posted by Jimmy03:

quote:

Originally posted by JMW37:

quote:

Originally posted by Jimmy03:
Your thought process is backwards. Who screwed up here? The defense...twice. F1 throw a pitch in the dirt and F2 misplayed it. Why should the offense be punished, when, in your description("inadvertenly"), the batter/runner did nothing wrong?

So if the count was 0-2 and the pitcher got the hitter to swing at a curve ball in the dirt and the catcher blocked it and kept it in front, they both screwed up?? Wow, I need to rethink some of the things I do as a coach!!

The only thing I see you need to do is make relevant comparisons.

The theory behind punishing the team the caused the problem is as old as baseball, football, basketball, lacrosse...etc.

Relevant comparisons??? I wasn't comparing anything! While we're talking about comparisons, "causing the problem" and "who screwed up here?" are two completely different things!

I'll bite, what is the difference?

In this example (using an 0-2 count), they caused the problem of the ball being kicked by the runner, but in no way "screwed up." The pitcher threw a ball outside of the strike zone like he should be coached to do on an 0-2 count. The catcher blocked the ball and kept it in front. That is what he's coached to do.

You guys are making too big an issue of it, I just didn't like the reference to them "screwing up" when it is not the case the way it was described.

And the batter took off for 1st base, as he is coached to do. Sometimes, you get a bad bounce.

Exactly! That's what I'm saying. No one "screwed up" here, including the defense.

You are taking "screw up" to literally. The defense caused the situation by throwing the pitch in the dirt and the catcher didn't field the ball. If the catcher catches the ball before the ball hits the dirt then the runner has no reason to run and there is no ball to kick.
You are correct that the pitcher is taught to throw a chase pitch on 0-2 but the catcher is taught to catch the pitch. He did a good job of keeping it in front of him but he did not catch it clean.

Actually, that's where you're wrong (and I see now why my statements were misconstrued). The catcher IS taught to block the pitch if it's in the dirt NOT catch it clean. That was pretty much my whole point.

Coach, you are tilting at windmills. The rules do not consider that a "mistake" was strategy.

OK, I give. You can't seem to understand that I am not making any judgement on your interpretation of the rules, simply your contention that a pitcher wasting one, and the catcher blocking it is a screwup (or as you're now calling it - a mistake). Carry on.

I'm no expert (well established), but let me offer this...

There was no interference, therefore the play continues to completion. No fault on anyone. Nobody did anything wrong (pitcher made a good pitch, catcher blocked it, batter ran). The ball hit the batter/runner incidentally. Keep playing. If batter gets to first before the defense recovers, he's safe.

Funny, nobody 'blamed' the hitter for swinging at a CB in the dirt and striking out. I think if I'm making judgement calls, the batter struck out and anything after that requires some justification of a base award. Only employed if I'm not sure about striking vs. kicking the ball and on the fringes of this discussion.

That was Mark W's initial point. Why should the batter/runner get first after wailing at a well thrown 0-2 pitch that F2 kept in front. But the contact was judged inadvertent so it's just a tough break for the defense. Throwing a 0-2 pitch in the dirt and not catching it cleanly don't constitute screw ups, but swinging at a pitch in the dirt would.

I see we're having a probelm with our different vocabularies.

Whether or not the pitcher was trying to throw low and away is not a consideration. His pitch in the dirt and the failure of F2 to secure it was, in this scenario seen as the cause of the ball ending up rolling up the baseline. Nothing the batter did caused this situation.

In baseball, since the days of Cartwright, we are relunctant to protect those who created the situation. Like it or not this is known in umpire parlance as those who "screwed up" or those who caused the problem.

Although the MLBUM only protects the batter near the plate circle in a similar play, in this exact situation, pro umpires will grant protection farther up the line if the touch by the batter is deemed inadvertant.

Remember, this is not a batted ball where interference, if the contact was in fair territory would be automatic and the B/R called out.

Understood. Thanks for the very clear summation.