Throw Hits the On Deck Batter

[Comp]

The on deck batter by rule has every bit as much right to be on the field as the base coaches and under the rules can also act as a coach to direct runners etc. It is not a blocked ball if a throw hits a base coach, so why would it be any different if it hits the on deck batter? As for touching, yes nfhs says it makes no difference, yet we do have situations where it does make a difference. Batter drops bat and ball and bat come together on the field. If both are moving the umpire has to judge did ball hit bat or did bat hit ball. There is a difference.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

 

[The Man In Blue]

Why is it different for a base coach and an on-deck batter? Because the rules make a specific distinction.

As for the logic of the rule, my guess is the on-deck hitter is closer to home and/or has better chance of impacting a play.

Bats hitting balls vs. balls hitting bats has nothing to do with this play.

 

[Comp]

Where is the distinction made in the rules that there is a difference between an on deck batter being hit by a thrown ball is any different than a base coach? And I would argue that since the rule allow them to be on the field, they are in fact participants in the game. As I have said, there is no case play which definitively states either way, but I have found a case play in NFHS that does involve a non participant being hit by a throw and the ball does remain live. and I have also found a 2nd case play that talks about a member of the team that "intentionally" touches the ball.

Case play 5.1.1.H has a wild throw that hits a photographer outside the media area and the ball remains live. A photographer on the field is a non participant of the game and the ball remains live, yet for some magical reason a wild throw hitting an on deck batter is immediately dead?

Case play 5.1.1.G is the case play about a wild throw rolling toward a dugout and is "intentionally" touched. In that play the ball is dead and overthrow or interference rules apply.

Until something from one of the sanctioning bodies is released stating one way or the other we are going to have to agree to disagree. I have nothing but a live ball, the defense made a wild throw that hit the on deck batter doing absolutely nothing and had no effect on the play.

 

[CHSUmp97]

I agree with Comp. You cannot reasonably expect the on-deck batter to avoid a wildly thrown ball that caroms off the fence and then hits her. She does have a right to be on the field, and unless she does something intentional to come in contact with the throw, the ball hitting her is inconsequential and stays live and in play. Shame on the defense for the bad throw; they are not going to gain any benefit when that throw hits the on-deck batter.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[MTR]

I'm with Comp & CHSUp97.

 

[The Man In Blue]

I also agree with that assessment and it is completely within the rules. I said I had misread the OP and missed where it was specifically said it was a wild throw to first base.

If it is only a wild throw, then all rule sets support “dead ball, runners go back”. However, there is some difference in codes if the on-deck hitter interferes with either a play or a player (lack of intent is not excusable in any code). What started as a wild throw to get an out at first may become a catcher retrieving the ball and having an additional play. Not saying that was what this play was, but what could be.

Where I am confused is by Comp saying the on-deck batter is no different than a base coach and that there is nothing in the rules saying otherwise. I posted both the USA and NFHS (and USSSA is virtually identical to NFHS) rule that apply specifically to on-deck hitters. Maybe I am misunderstanding something?

 

[The Man In Blue]

Just to refresh (complete with my initial misreading) ...

I don’t know that I would jump to just returning the runners under NFHS or USSSA. Here is NFHS’s wording (USSSA is virtually the same):

Rule 7 Batting
SECTION 5 ON-DECK BATTER
Art. 4 . . . The on-deck batter shall not commit interference with the defensive team.
PENALTIES: (Art. 4)
1. When the interference is with a thrown or pitched ball, the ball is dead and the runner closest to home is declared out. If no play is obvious, no player is out, but runners shall return to the last base touched at the time of interference.

Per the OP, the ball caromed off the fence, hit the on-deck batter, and then ricocheted behind home plate where the catcher had to go get it. The right fielder made a play at the plate ... it may not have been a well-executed play, but it was a play.


USA Softball:
Rule 7 - Batting
Section 1 - On-Deck Batter
D. The on-deck batter may not interfere with a defensive player’s opportunity to make an out.

So in USA Softball it would come down to whether the umpire thought the defense had an actual chance at getting the runner out.

 

[marriard]

Until something from one of the sanctioning bodies is released stating one way or the other we are going to have to agree to disagree. I have nothing but a live ball, the defense made a wild throw that hit the on deck batter doing absolutely nothing and had no effect on the play.

I can certainly see enough grey area in the way the rules are written (and on some cases undefined terms) where either call on the field is acceptable.

I hate when the rules leave some terms really undefined or when they use the same term or word and want it to mean different things even within the same rule section.

Also, a case study can say how to call a particular situation that does not automatically show how you call a different situation. And of course even worse, just because the case study in NFHS says one thing, it doesn't mean that is how it is meant to be called in USSSA - even though in general we do.

 

[Comp]

Just to refresh (complete with my initial misreading) ...

Ya you are missing something, the part of the rule that says interference. The on deck batter did nothing of any sort to interfere with anything. It was an errant throw that bounced off a fence and hit them, what act of interference occured? It is simply a live ball.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

 

[Comp]

I can certainly see enough grey area in the way the rules are written (and on some cases undefined terms) where either call on the field is acceptable.

I hate when the rules leave some terms really undefined or when they use the same term or word and want it to mean different things even within the same rule section.

Also, a case study can say how to call a particular situation that does not automatically show how you call a different situation. And of course even worse, just because the case study in NFHS says one thing, it doesn't mean that is how it is meant to be called in USSSA - even though in general we do.

Usssa very closely follows nfhs rules, and if they don't specifically cover something they defer to nfhs.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk