Throw Hits the On Deck Batter

[The Man In Blue]

I am laughing very hard right now ... because we are both making the same argument for different reasons. I’m questioning myself if I have lost site of the discussion.

As it is, the rule is written pretty specifically. We may not like it or think we have better solutions, but we should be calling the game by the rule. Don’t apply any other rule, just the one written for this.

If the ball hits the on-deck batter and it changes an obvious play, you have interference and the runner closest to home is out.

If the ball hit the on-deck batter and it really doesn’t seem to affect anything, play on.

 

[WVSteven]

Agreed. If I have a player throwing a ball at another player with the intent of hitting that player, I have a dead ball (placing the runners as a I see fit) and ejections for the player and the coach. That’s not a hard one.



It does not matter what touches what by rule. The example you give of the bat/ball or ball/bat contact is a specific rule to that situation. Outside of specific situations which are clearly defined, the rule book states “touching is touching” no matter who/what initiates the contact. I will grant that touching is touching but I will not acquiesce that touching is necessarily interference.

I’m starting to really dig into the concepts and verbiage of rules as research for a book I am contemplating. One thing I am noticing is that when people claim there is no rule for a situation, it is because they latched on to another rule and didn’t find the right rule.



This we can try to determine this, but I don’t know that we can give an adequate answer. Obviously we cannot have the ODB interfering with a play. But what is “a play”? If a runner is in motion, I believe there is potential for a play. Just because a throw is horrible and there is no apparent immediate play, does not mean a play couldn’t have developed once the fielder retrieved the ball. Is it fair now that the ODB deflected the ball 18 inches of line and the catcher had to move that much further away from the field to get it ... meanwhile the runner who would have stopped at third is now rounding it. Is she going to go? Would she have gone? We don’t know. Who caused the problem? Did the ODB do anything illegal? Is being hit with the ball illegal? Not for the base-runner. A ball that touches a player isn't necessarily interference.


I mentioned earlier it is kind of funny (IMO) that the ODB seems to be treated in the rules as a piece of equipment rather than a player. I haven't seen that in the book personally. She seems to be a player with certain duties and responsibilities. To me, this is an appropriate way to view this play — whether it is the ODB or a batting helmet yeh offense left on the field I front of their dugout. Personally, I don’t like rules where I am expected to judge the player’s intent. I understand their purpose, but it just opens up too many doors. I don’t feel killing the ball immediately is punishing the offense for a bad defensive throw; I feel it is punishing the offense for failing to provide a clean field of play. The advantage the ODB has over a batting helmet is the ODB can and should be getting out of the way. If the ODB is not paying attention, then we have a safety issue and the ODB should not be out there. I will assume you've been on the field before. I'll say that surely you have seen things you did not expect even when paying attention. If the ball caroms off the fence or tips off the top of the glove at first base someone can be hit easily, not her fault.

Kind of a tangent question — you are PU. You look over and see the ODB (a) tying her shoe, (b) turned around talking to the dugout, or (c) with her batting helmet sitting on the ground in front of her. What do you do in those situations? Hold up play and have her remedy the situation. That is a left field tangent because we're talking about a ball in play vs. waiting for a pitch to be delivered.

 

[testandor]

First, I want to state emphatically that whenever it comes to rule interpretations, I will always take a back seat to you and COMP and marriard and MTR and many others here, because I haven't attended years worth of rules meetings. These are my feelings from umpiring and coaching games for decades. And second, I appreciate the opportunity to discuss - and even argue - these type of issues, especially with you and others who won't have a hissy fit and then slam the door on their way out of the discussion.

As to this specific discussion on this specific play, you have already posted the rule (NFHS & USSSA) that proves you are right. I'm not arguing that you're wrong. I'm arguing that the rule seems horribly written, stating clearly what interference is and what the penalty is, and then goes right into telling us when the conditions needed to have interference either don't exist or no longer exist, we have to enforce part of the interference penalty by returning all runners. USA's version is the one I used for years, and also seems to make perfect sense to me.

To me, we either have interference or we don't. The very definition of interference is the offense interfering with the defense's opportunity to make a play - or, as we've discussed, to get an out. There is no reason for governing bodies to carve out a special circumstance of interference to give a partial penalty when there's either no initial chance to get an out, or that initial chance failed and there's no subsequent chance to get an out on that play. Why in God's name the defense can blow a play by throwing the ball away and then get rewarded by having the runners not only halted on the bases, but returned to the last base touched is beyond me. Oh, I see...the wild throw from RF that got by the 1Bman, bounced off the fence, glanced off the ODB and then rolled all the way down to the cage all was the fault of that darned ODB.

In my mind, if the rules allow offensive team personnel to be on the field, and those personnel are where they're allowed and supposed to be, then that's not interference if they don't "interfere with the defense's chance to get an out."

Try this. Runner on 1st, corners playing up, hard ground ball to the right side that gets past the 1Bman. Ball takes a bad second hop and hits the base runner a good 20 ft from where the 2Bman is playing. The RF'er is 15 ft in front of the OF fence, meaning no other fielder has a chance to get an out. "Whoa, whoa," you hear the fans yelling, "that batted ball hit the runner!" Yeh, so what?" She's not out, and neither is the ODB in our example, because there was NO CHANCE for the defense to get an out after the ball got by the 1Bman.

Or how about this? Runner on 2nd, fly ball down the LF line that drops in fair. Runner rounds 3rd heading for home, LF'er throws a bullet to the plate that hits the runner in the helmet as she's starting her slide at the plate. She's not out either, and she DID get in the way of the catcher getting the out at home.

Now, I say that if you're hell bent on making a special penalty for an offensive person on a play where - in the umpire's judgement - no out could be made, then you need to call it something else other than interference. Yeh, something silly that will fit right in with this stupidly worded part of the interference rule. I know, how about calling it an "oopsie"? So, if the offensive personnel ruined a chance at a defensive play for an out, then she interfered and we'll call it... let's see, what would be appropriate? Ahh, yes, I know. She interfered, let's call it interference! And if she got hit with a wild throw, or a late throw that couldn't get the out, we'll call it an oopsie, and then we can send the runners back because, well, because some people on Fastpitch Rules Committees just want to make shirt up instead of trying to consistently get things right.