Throw Hits the On Deck Batter

[CHSUmp97]

Well, bureaucrats tend to do that sort of thing. It would be easier to just change the wording to "actually fix the darned thing!"

"If no play is obvious, no player is out, and runners are free to run at their own risk."

That should do it, I would say.

No that wouldn't, with all due respect. You would be saying that on-deck batter interference with no obvious play is essentially not interference, where it most certainly could be, and then you should kill the ball and not let runners advance.

A simple example would be the on-deck batter in this play, through a momentary lapse, picks up the ball after it stops at her feet and tosses it to the catcher while she's still an appreciable distance away. That would be interference without an obvious play, and no way should the ball be kept live.

My last here: there are three possibilities that can happen here. Two are interference, where the ball must be ruled dead immediately. One would be where the ODB clearly hindered a play, so the result would be the closest runner to home being ruled out. The other would be with no obvious play, so runners return to their last legally touched bases.

The third possibility is simply incidental contact between the ball and the ODB while the ODB is in a place where she's allowed to be (in her circle, or in a position to direct a scoring runner), and that would result in just keeping the ball live. If you really need language for this, just add a separate sentence under each sanction's ODB interference rule that says, "If a thrown or pitched ball accidentally hits the on-deck batter, this is incidental contact and the ball remains live."

 

[The Man In Blue]

Personally I like rules to be black or white ... make “on-deck batter interference” it’s own specific thing.

Pick this apart ...

TMIB’s Imaginary Softball Rulebook
Rule X - Batting
Section Y - On-deck batter
Sub-Section Z - On-deck batter interference
1) On-deck batter interference occurs any time a live ball comes into contact with an on-deck batter.
2) When on-deck batter interference occurs:
a) The ball immediately becomes dead.
b) If the on-deck batter interference occurs at the end of a defensive play or with no available play for the defense, runners may not continue to advance and are returned to the last base touched.
c) If on-deck batter interference occurs while the defense is making a play or has an opportunity to make an immediate play on any runner, the runner closest to reaching home plate is out and all other runners are returned to the last base touched.

Umpire guidance/Rule interpretation: When assessing the penalty for on-deck batter interference, do not consider what could happen, consider what is happening when the on-deck batter interference occurred.

 

[testandor]

CHSUmp97

My issue is with the wording in the rule. If we correct the wording in two spots, I don't think we'd have any disagreement.

1. "If no play is obvious"... This should be written as it is intended to be understood. "No play" is intended to be understood as "no opportunity to make an out." So, one possible better way would be, "If no play is obvious no player has an opportunity to make an out, no player is out, but runners shall return to the last base touched at the time of interference and the ball remains live.

2. You can't state a rule as to what happens when there is interference, and then, when stating what happens when you DON'T have interference, state where the runners go "at the time of interference".

As to your comments, just a couple of replies from me. They're embedded with your comments.

No that wouldn't, with all due respect. You would be saying that on-deck batter interference with no obvious play is essentially not interference, No, sir. Once you use the words "on-deck batter interference", that means that we have interference, and a dead ball must be called.

A simple example would be the on-deck batter in this play, through a momentary lapse, picks up the ball after it stops at her feet and tosses it to the catcher while she's still an appreciable distance away. I mean no disrespect, but this is a silly example. We don't know each other, but I'd bet that neither one of us, or any other umpire either one of us works with and respects, would allow the on deck batter to "pick up the ball after it stops at her feet and toss it to the catcher" without immediately calling interference and a dead ball.

My last here: there are three possibilities that can happen here. Two are interference, where the ball must be ruled dead immediately.

One would be where the ODB clearly hindered a play, so the result would be the closest runner to home being ruled out. Agreed!

The other would be with no obvious play, so runners return to their last legally touched bases. We don't agree here. As per my comments above, "No obvious play" means "no opportunity to make an out", therefore no interference. And with no interference, runners wouldn't have to return.

The third possibility is simply incidental contact between the ball and the ODB while the ODB is in a place where she's allowed to be (in her circle, or in a position to direct a scoring runner), and that would result in just keeping the ball live. AGREED!

As I said, change the wording to be simple and clear, and I don't think we have any disagreement.

 

[testandor]

I didn't read this post until last night, but I would like to respond.

"The Man In Blue
Personally I like rules to be black or white ... make “on-deck batter interference” it’s own specific thing.

"Pick this apart" ...Thanks...don't mind if I do.

TMIB’s Imaginary Softball Rulebook
Rule X - Batting
Section Y - On-deck batter
Sub-Section Z - On-deck batter interference
1) On-deck batter interference occurs any time a live ball comes into contact with an on-deck batter. No, no and NO! Any time they have contact? The circumstances surrounding the contact of an offensive player with a defensive player are the ONLY things that matter, because they are the only things that an umpire can use to make a judgment as to whether or not interference actually occurred.
2) When on-deck batter interference occurs:
a) The ball immediately becomes dead.
b) If the on-deck batter interference occurs at the end of a defensive play or with no available play for the defense, then, by definition, we have NO INTERFERENCE! runners may not continue to advance and are returned to the last base touched. Why can't they advance? If we have NO INTERFERENCE, what rationale is there for not only preventing the runners from advancing, but for making them return to the last base touched?
c) If on-deck batter interference occurs while the defense is making a play or has an opportunity to make an immediate play on any runner, the runner closest to reaching home plate is out and all other runners are returned to the last base touched. This is the way that your TMIB's rule book could adequately and definitively describe the basis for calling ODB interference and its penalty. Just this, nothing else.

Umpire guidance/Rule interpretation: When assessing the penalty for on-deck batter interference, do not consider what could happen, consider what is happening when the on-deck batter interference incident occurred. It's just an ODB incident. No interference until the umpire makes a judgement call saying that it is indeed interference. But, yes, I agree! Let's consider what was happening in the relatively strange play that actually occurred and that was described in the OP. "Runner on second, batter hits a line drive to right field. Outfielder comes up throwing to first for the force out. The throw is low and skips by the first baseman, caroms off the fence, hits the on deck batter (she's 3 ft from the fence) and continues behind home plate. Catcher collects the ball as the runner from second scores."

So, after having the defense's RF'er/1Bman screw up a play at 1B so badly that instead of getting an out at 1st, the ball hit the 1B fence, caromed off the ODB and rolled all the way to the back stop, can someone please tell me why in the world you think that defensive screw up deserves to be rewarded by taking away the run that scored and putting her back at 3rd? Anyone? Anyone?

 

[The Man In Blue]

Testandor, I understand what you are wanting to accomplish, but I don’t understand why.

The fundamental difference in our approaches is that you want to provide a circumstance that keeps the ball live. I want all circumstances to result in a dead ball.

You ask “why we are punishing the offense for a bad defensive play?” ... I ask “why are we allowing a member of the offense to touch a live ball without penalty?”

 

[testandor]

Testandor, I understand what you are wanting to accomplish, but I don’t understand why.

“why are we allowing a member of the offense to touch a live ball without penalty?”

She didn't. She was hit with an errant throw, after the attempt by the defense to get an out had been made and lost.

 

[The Man In Blue]

She didn't. She was hit with an errant throw, after the attempt by the defense to get an out had been made and lost.

I love me some semantic antics ... ... but she did touch a
live ball. Whether she touched it or it touched her does not matter (NFHS specifically states this, USA makes reference in the definition of a blocked ball).

 

[WVSteven]

My fear is that a coach will realize that a thrown ball hitting the ODB will kill the ball and begin coaching his girls to throw the ball and hit her to stop runners. (Don't dismiss this, we all know that coach)
Then we have created an even bigger can of worms. How do you handle the defensive player who throws the ball at the ODB on purpose? I think that instead of a regular play now we have to consider an ejection. Whatever behavior you reward will be repeated and whatever behavior you punish will be extinguished.

MIB, you made the statement, "Whether she touched it or it touched her does not matter." But it does when considering a second touch of the bat on a batted ball. As an umpire you have to decide if the bat hit the ball or the ball hit the bat. What or who initiated the contact?

Also understand the spirit of the rule. Is the rule written to protect the defense against a horrible throw or against the ODB's attempt to stop a play or impede or change the path of the ball?

Bad throw bounces off a fence and she doesn't have time to react, ball continues to travel, play on. (If the same ball gets trapped, stuck between her and the fence, under her foot, whatever, dead ball, return the runners) If she moves into the path of the ball, sticks a hand up, or makes contact with the ball that would not have happened had she not moved, or could have reasonably gotten out of the way, then we kill the play and assess outs, return runners.

 

[The Man In Blue]

My fear is that a coach will realize that a thrown ball hitting the ODB will kill the ball and begin coaching his girls to throw the ball and hit her to stop runners. (Don't dismiss this, we all know that coach)
Then we have created an even bigger can of worms. How do you handle the defensive player who throws the ball at the ODB on purpose? I think that instead of a regular play now we have to consider an ejection. Whatever behavior you reward will be repeated and whatever behavior you punish will be extinguished.

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.

MIB, you made the statement, "Whether she touched it or it touched her does not matter." But it does when considering a second touch of the bat on a batted ball. As an umpire you have to decide if the bat hit the ball or the ball hit the bat. What or who initiated the contact?

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’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.

Also understand the spirit of the rule. Is the rule written to protect the defense against a horrible throw or against the ODB's attempt to stop a play or impede or change the path of the ball?

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.

Bad throw bounces off a fence and she doesn't have time to react, ball continues to travel, play on. (If the same ball gets trapped, stuck between her and the fence, under her foot, whatever, dead ball, return the runners) If she moves into the path of the ball, sticks a hand up, or makes contact with the ball that would not have happened had she not moved, or could have reasonably gotten out of the way, then we kill the play and assess outs, return runners.

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. 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.

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?

 

[CHSUmp97]

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.

I've heard this argument before, and it doesn't hold water. We don't make decisions regarding interference by extrapolation the possible if we let play continue.

Using your theory, assume a base coach fields a ground ball heading his/her way. No harm, no foul, right? Well, wait a minute: suppose if the base coach had left the ball alone, it could've hit a divot or a rock and gone into fair territory, allowing the defense to make a play on a runner or the batter-runner who didn't run it out. So we should rule interference every time a base coach touches a batted ground ball because there is a chance of it going fair, right?

No, we don't make interference rulings by analyzing the realm of the possible after the fact. We make them the moment something happens and immediately determine that at the time of the "something" there was a fielder in the act of making a play.