1. Incorrect.

2. Correct.

3. Correct. (Nicely done).

4. Correct. Most people think standing on a base is like a safe harbor.

 

#1 will surprise you.

 

OK. I found the ruling and it makes sense. The interference is called ONLY if the catcher cannot make a play on the runner. Since he was able to, its assumed there was no interference.

 

As you probably know, you're only protected when a ball hits you if you're a)in foul territory or b)standing on the base on and IFF.

1) Batter is not out and stealing runner is out. The option to choose the play, is afforded to the Defensive team, since the runner was put out.

 

Other runners can't advance.

 

Partially correct. In this case as described, the runner on third can advance.

OK. I found the ruling and it makes sense. The interference is called ONLY if the catcher cannot make a play on the runner. Since he was able to, its assumed there was no interference.

 

As you probably know, you're only protected when a ball hits you if you're a)in foul territory or b)standing on the base on and IFF.

 

Bingo! I always found this one kind of interesting. Of course, it's something you'll see once in your life, if ever (I never have), but nonetheless interesting.

 

I'll bet 80% of "baseball knowledgeable" people think if you are standing on a base when you're hit by a batted ball that you would not be out. Maybe not, but I think most people assume it is some type of safe harbor, which it only is (as you pointed out) on an IFF.

I have seen it called the way I explained. Runner would be out due to a throwout and the run counts. The hands are considered an extension, so to speak, of the bat. This very thing happened in a game last season. And that is how the ump explained it. No dead ball.

 

That is one of the biggest rule myths in all of baseball - "the hand are part of the bat." Whenever I hear someone say this, I just say, "OK, here hold this bat for me. Now drop it." Then point to the bat and say, "I couldn't help but notice that your hands are not still attached to it, thusly they are part of the bat." You get hit on the hands (assuming you haven't swung or the ball wasn't in the strike zone) and you should be standing on first base.

 

The other one I get a kick out of is when a pitch in the dirt hits the batter. People think that he is not entitled to first base because the ball first bounced, but he most certainly is.

Bingo! I always found this one kind of interesting. Of course, it's something you'll see once in your life, if ever (I never have), but nonetheless interesting.

 

 

Change it up slightly. Lets say when the batter swings, his front toe touches the inside of the plate. What do you do with the runners and the batter?

Change it up slightly. Lets say when the batter swings, his front toe touches the inside of the plate. What do you do with the runners and the batter?

 

I would assume that the batter is automatically out, dead ball, runners return to their bases.

Change it up slightly. Lets say when the batter swings, his front toe touches the inside of the plate. What do you do with the runners and the batter?

If runner is thrown out, it stands and no interference on batter.

 

If no out on the runner, then interference on the batter and ball is dead, runners return to base.....I think.

I would assume that the batter is automatically out, dead ball, runners return to their bases.

 

I need to amend my answer. I kind of got confused on the scenarios we were talking about and was thinking this was the one where the batter hits the ball. Since there was no contact with the pitch, it doesn't matter that his foot was out of the box, so I agree with Strike 3. No call, the throw out of the runner stands.

I would assume that the batter is automatically out, dead ball, runners return to their bases.

 

What assumptions are you making about the toe touching the plate?

I need to amend my answer. I kind of got confused on the scenarios we were talking about and was thinking this was the one where the batter hits the ball. Since there was no contact with the pitch, it doesn't matter that his foot was out of the box, so I agree with Strike 3. No call, the throw out of the runner stands.

 

Sorry for the confusion.

 

My "toe touching the plate" addendum was to the play where the pitcher dekes the runner on 2nd into diving back where he is ultimately hit by the hit ball.

 

What do you do with the batter and/or runners?

What assumptions are you making about the toe touching the plate?

 

If we are talking about the scenario with the interference on the catcher, I am assuming that: 1) batters foot out of box; 2) no contact on pitch; and 3) catcher threw out runner as in my scenario (therefore making irrelevent whether his foot was out of box). Am I close?

Sorry for the confusion.

 

My "toe touching the plate" addendum was to the play where the pitcher dekes the runner on 2nd into diving back where he is ultimately hit by the hit ball.

 

What do you do with the batter and/or runners?

 

OK. Different scenario altogether. I will assume his foot is completely out of box, therefore he is out. Dead ball. No runners can advance. I don't believe that stepping on plate is an automatic out, as you could still not have your foot entirely out of box (but it would be rare). Close?

OK. Different scenario altogether. I will assume his foot is completely out of box, therefore he is out. Dead ball. No runners can advance. I don't believe that stepping on plate is an automatic out, as you could still not have your foot entirely out of box (but it would be rare). Close?

 

Well played.

Well played.

 

Cool. :dancingpa I'll have to come up with a few more scenarios to mess with you and Strike3, but you guys seems to be knocking them out pretty good.

Cool. :dancingpa I'll have to come up with a few more scenarios to mess with you and Strike3, but you guys seems to be knocking them out pretty good.

I've been known to K some.