On Deck Headache

[Banjo26]

CIF game over the weekend. First batter of the inning. Batter hits a pop-foul toward the on deck batter in her circle. 1B and C both approach hard and reach on deck circle. Batter doesn't move and instead uses her bat to 'pepper' the ball back toward the pitcher with a mock swing. 1B and C both capable of reaching/catching playable popped ball.

So, what sort of call / no call should be made by blue?

Thanks!

[Comp]

Interference on the on deck batter, batter is out.

[jonriv]

What was called?

[Banjo26]

No call, no warning, no nothing. Play on. Pretty frustrating.

Thanks!

[ajaywill]

Perhaps the umpire on the game didn't see it the same way you did.

It is entirely possible that s/he thought that no defender had a chance to get to the ball in flight and did not deem the on-deck batter's actions to be interference.

It is a judgement call as to whether or not there was a play being interfered with.

[fastpitchdad05]

Perhaps the umpire on the game didn't see it the same way you did.

It is entirely possible that s/he thought that no defender had a chance to get to the ball in flight and did not deem the on-deck batter's actions to be interference.

It is a judgement call as to whether or not there was a play being interfered with.

I don't know how the rule reads, but I would think there should be some rule against the on-deck batter peppering the ball during a live play. Judgement of interference notwithstanding.

[MTR]

Perhaps the umpire on the game didn't see it the same way you did.

It is entirely possible that s/he thought that no defender had a chance to get to the ball in flight and did not deem the on-deck batter's actions to be interference.

It is a judgement call as to whether or not there was a play being interfered with.

I don't know how the rule reads, but I would think there should be some rule against the on-deck batter peppering the ball during a live play. Judgement of interference notwithstanding.

It's not a live ball. I have no idea what you mean by "pepper" as opposed to hit or batted.

If the umpire judged they interfered with a play, it is INT. If not, it is just a foul ball. In either case, it is still a dead ball.

[fastpitchdad05]

Perhaps the umpire on the game didn't see it the same way you did.

It is entirely possible that s/he thought that no defender had a chance to get to the ball in flight and did not deem the on-deck batter's actions to be interference.

It is a judgement call as to whether or not there was a play being interfered with.

I don't know how the rule reads, but I would think there should be some rule against the on-deck batter peppering the ball during a live play. Judgement of interference notwithstanding.

It's not a live ball. I have no idea what you mean by "pepper" as opposed to hit or batted.

If the umpire judged they interfered with a play, it is INT. If not, it is just a foul ball. In either case, it is still a dead ball.

How in the world is it not a live ball?

It's what I always suspected...MTR never actually played sports, which is why he umps. What else could explain him not knowing what pepper is?

[UmpSteve]

Pretty sure he meant it was no longer a live ball once it contacted the on-deck batter.

All the secondary issues aside, there is still just one applicable rule, and it has been cited. Interference if the umpire judged the on-deck batter interfered with a makeable play, dead ball foul ball if the umpire judged not a play. Redefining or redescribing what action and/or how the on-deck batter interfered is immaterial to the play being questioned.

[slapperdad]

[quote="fastpitchdad05"

It's what I always suspected...MTR never actually played sports, which is why he umps. What else could explain him not knowing what pepper is? [/quote]

Far be it for me to speak on MTR's behalf, but I'm pretty sure the word "pepper" doesn't appear in the rule book. Officials have to rule on the game based on the rule book and it's definitions.