Ruling on ball in the dirt and hitting batter/runner

Unless the contact was intentional, play on.

Yes, play on. The batter wasn't hit by a pitch, he was hit by a ball off the catcher.

quote:

Originally posted by OA5II:

What say you?

There's nothing to say.

If the ball/runner contact occurs up the 1B line where the batter-runner has had a chance to avoid the ball, he is out.Still a judgment call based on whether the umpire feels that the batter runner had enough time to avoid the ball.
JW

quote:

Originally posted by jerry weinstein:
If the ball/runner contact occurs up the 1B line where the batter-runner has had a chance to avoid the ball, he is out.Still a judgment call based on whether the umpire feels that the batter runner had enough time to avoid the ball.
JW

I think you may be confusing this situation with a B/R interfering with a batted ball, which is not the case here.

Jimmy,
I think you and I disagreed on this point once before, but MLBUM 6.11 covers this situation exactly, and jerry weinstein is correct.

quote:

Originally posted by 3FingeredGlove:
Jimmy,
I think you and I disagreed on this point once before, but MLBUM 6.11 covers this situation exactly, and jerry weinstein is correct.

You may be correct about the disagreement...in practice this call requires intent. If one considers the location, e.g. "up the line" evidence of intent, so be it. I do not, nor have any of my pro "partners."

When I have raised the MLBUM, I get, "Yeah, yeah, yeah...we don't penalize the offense because the defense can't get the ball from the pitcher to the catcher. Who'd you rather defend in an arugment with the skipper, the runner trying to get to first on the dropped strike or the the catcher who dropped it?"

quote:

Originally posted by Jimmy03:

quote:

Originally posted by 3FingeredGlove:
Jimmy,
I think you and I disagreed on this point once before, but MLBUM 6.11 covers this situation exactly, and jerry weinstein is correct.

You may be correct about the disagreement...in practice this call requires intent. If one considers the location, e.g. "up the line" evidence of intent, so be it. I do not, nor have any of my pro "partners."

When I have raised the MLBUM, I get, "Yeah, yeah, yeah...we don't penalize the offense because the defense can't get the ball from the pitcher to the catcher. Who'd you rather defend in an arugment with the skipper, the runner trying to get to first on the dropped strike or the the catcher who dropped it?"

I'm responding to this from a manager's prospective.Regarding the above post, the PBUC Umpire Manual clearly defines this exact situation in 4.16(pg.40).It is an interpretation of 7.09(a) in the Official Rule Book providing 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 outs.Strike three not caught.Batter-runner 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 & in play.However, if this occurs up the first base line(where the batter-runner has had time to avoid the ball),interference is called, the batter-runner is declared out,& runners return to the base occupied at the time of the pitch.

This has nothing to do with intent.It has everything to do with could the batter-runner have avoided the ball. If he could have avoided the ball,in the umpire's judgment, & did not he should be called out.

As far as the comment regarding not penalizing the offense because the defense can't get the ball from the pitcher to the catcher,I find that ridiculous. I can't tell how many times we throw breaking balls or splits in the dirt in two strike situations with the intention of getting the hitter to chase.We expect our catcher to block the ball(not catch it) & recover to tag the batter-runner or throw him out at first.

IMO,in this case, if umpires would interpret the rules as they are written you would not get an argument from either side. When you go against the rules as they are written, you ask for trouble.

I have a lot of respect for umpires & make every effort not to make them a part of my day. I did not get run this summer(148 games) & none of my players got run.

JW

quote:

Originally posted by jerry weinstein:

This has nothing to do with intent.It has everything to do with could the batter-runner have avoided the ball. If he could have avoided the ball,in the umpire's judgment, & did not he should be called out.

If he could have avoided the ball and didn't, he interfered intentionally.

I can't help but think that this scenario is being over complicated. In the real world this happens very quickly and umpire judgement is a huge factor in determining the call. If the uncaught third strike rolls toward first base and the batter-runner doesn't see the ball and makes contact with it, I have nothing. Play on. If the batter-runner sees it and is unable to avoid it, play on. If the batter runner sees the ball and makes no effort to avoid it I have interference. If there is any doubt, the benefit goes to the batter-runner because the defense caused the problem to begin with.

quote:

Originally posted by jerry weinstein:
This has nothing to do with intent.It has everything to do with could the batter-runner have avoided the ball. If he could have avoided the ball,in the umpire's judgment, & did not he should be called out.

Uhhhhh.....that's intent Jerry. That's what I said mattered. And it's different than your first post, in which you based the call on location not B/R's failure to avoid when, "in the umpire's judgment" he could have. (Again, intent)

That's what I've been saying.

quote:

As far as the comment regarding not penalizing the offense because the defense can't get the ball from the pitcher to the catcher,I find that ridiculous.

That's unfortunate and an apparent refusal to acknowledge reality, tradition, and the rules. Most rules, enforcements, casebook rulings and professional interps are based on penalizing the team that caused the issue in the first place. This is nothing new...it goes back to the beginnings.

quote:

IMO,in this case, if umpires would interpret the rules as they are written you would not get an argument from either side. When you go against the rules as they are written, you ask for trouble.

I am interpreting the rule as MLB interprets the rule. So are those who I spoke with. Approved interpretations are how the written rules are to be enforced. Again...nothing new here.

Jerry:
MrUmpire, Jimmy and Dash are agreeing with you. If the ball is in the vicinity then it is nothing. If the ball is up the line then by doing nothing it is considered intentional.
Once it gets away from the plate look at it this way, if it is rolling or boouncing down the line and it hits him from behind or side, play it. If it is out in front of him then penalize him.
"Away from the plate" is where you have to umpire. It has to be more than a step or two away, it has to be enough that he has the ability to avoid. It is the same reason that the catcher/BR tie up at the plate on a batted ball is nothing.