Happen to my son tonight...he even got to ball after kick yet without time to "clear" and pegged runner in the bacm as he was INSIDE the foul line...UMP TALKED AND LEFT RUNNER AT 1ST! Ump also missed a drop 3 tag and then gave batter chance to still run to first after he was half way to dugout cause he himswlf felt the HARD tag i teach my son to give so its noticed! The pitcher actualy completed the out by throwing it to first before runner got there! Sad part is he called one our batters out sayn first was ocupied when THERE WAS 2 OUTS!! His balls and stikes was good but other parts of his game far as being loud and letting players know his JUDGEMENT along with not knowing rules could use ALOT OF WORK!
In this case, the ball was pushed into the BRs path by the catcher (unintentionally). The catcher had a chance to field the pitch and failed, knocking it into the BR's path. If this is the approved ruling, fine, but I can see an argument for penalizing the team that screwed up (the defense) and ruling safe. [and yes, I know this video is months old.]
yeah, this ruling really bugs me. they keep saying the batter "kicked" the ball, which I don't see anywhere in the video. I see the ball rolling into the back of the runner's heel, planted on the ground, while he was running away from the ball, after the ball was misplayed by the catcher. how can this be called interference? especially when rule 6.01(a)(1) Comment specifically says the batter-runner isn't to be called out for interference merely because he is touched by the ball.
You cannot judge "intent." Same application with obstruction - no "intent" is necessary. It makes an umpire's job somewhat easier. Remember, no matter what the call is, you can only "please" 50% of the fans 100% of the time.
where are you getting rule 7.09? that's from the old rulebook 6 years ago, but this play and video happened in 2019. the current book doesn't even reference the old rule numbers anymore. it IS still rule 7.09(a) in the Little League rulebook, if that helps anyone.
yes, I much prefer the NFHS rule here, 8-4-1a - "The batter-runner is out when he intentionally interferes with the catcher's attempt to field the ball after a third strike". But I don't think the OBR rule is being interpreted correctly on this play either.
He is out by rule. Plain and simple nuff said.
Good topic. However, I do have an issue with the verbiage. It should be "uncaught" third strike not "dropped."
Happen to my son tonight...he even got to ball after kick yet without time to "clear" and pegged runner in the bacm as he was INSIDE the foul line...UMP TALKED AND LEFT RUNNER AT 1ST! Ump also missed a drop 3 tag and then gave batter chance to still run to first after he was half way to dugout cause he himswlf felt the HARD tag i teach my son to give so its noticed! The pitcher actualy completed the out by throwing it to first before runner got there! Sad part is he called one our batters out sayn first was ocupied when THERE WAS 2 OUTS!! His balls and stikes was good but other parts of his game far as being loud and letting players know his JUDGEMENT along with not knowing rules could use ALOT OF WORK!
In this case, the ball was pushed into the BRs path by the catcher (unintentionally). The catcher had a chance to field the pitch and failed, knocking it into the BR's path. If this is the approved ruling, fine, but I can see an argument for penalizing the team that screwed up (the defense) and ruling safe. [and yes, I know this video is months old.]
yeah, this ruling really bugs me. they keep saying the batter "kicked" the ball, which I don't see anywhere in the video. I see the ball rolling into the back of the runner's heel, planted on the ground, while he was running away from the ball, after the ball was misplayed by the catcher. how can this be called interference? especially when rule 6.01(a)(1) Comment specifically says the batter-runner isn't to be called out for interference merely because he is touched by the ball.
Nice... I thought he was safe... but the intent is on a hit ball when the batter hits the ball again with his bat. 5.09 (a) (8)
You cannot judge "intent."
Same application with obstruction - no "intent" is necessary.
It makes an umpire's job somewhat easier.
Remember, no matter what the call is, you can only "please" 50% of the fans 100% of the time.
where are you getting rule 7.09? that's from the old rulebook 6 years ago, but this play and video happened in 2019. the current book doesn't even reference the old rule numbers anymore. it IS still rule 7.09(a) in the Little League rulebook, if that helps anyone.
So what is the definition of ‘clearly hinders’
Unless FED rules, then B-R is not guilty of interference and the ball remains alive, unless in the umpire's judgment B-R intentionally kicked the ball
Thanks for that clarification. If you'd like to help out with our FED rules pages, let me know.
yes, I much prefer the NFHS rule here, 8-4-1a - "The batter-runner is out when he intentionally interferes with the catcher's attempt to field the ball after a third strike". But I don't think the OBR rule is being interpreted correctly on this play either.
Definitely interference, good call on the ump.
I dont understand ingles canyou espeak español mi no hablar english
Nancy Gonzalez cayate pendeja