Quote:
The ball in the situation was a fair ball. the player never touched it, it settled fair, therefore, the fair aspect of INT is met.
There is a punitive effect of INT.. but some umpires are averse to enforcing a punitive punishment, and instead you are looking for a "Fair/equal way" to enforce this play.
The rules are clear.
|
Yes, the rules are clear. However, the "aspect" of INT is not met unless the fielder is interfered with while attempting to field a batted fair ball.
From the OP, it doesn't seem the defender was attempting to field the ball once it's status was deteremined as a fair ball.
Quote:
Its obvious, a runner Interfered with a fair batted ball.
Everyone knows it, because the unanamious ruling is INT DB.
|
There you go, the tree-huggers have declared victory with no evidence to support the win.
I don't believe there has been a consensus here.
Quote:
There is no rule is ASA that says
"INT = DB, strike on batter (unless its 2 strikes), do over."
Int is DB runner out.. etc.
|
There is also no ASA rule that states interfering with a defender attempting to field a batted foul ball, unless a fly ball over foul territory, is interference.
There is no correct answer that includes an interference call to this scenario that can be attributed to the ASA rules.
I don't necessarily agree that should be the case, but if you are going to cite rules, you need to apply them as written or instructed via POE or clinic guide and those exceptions presently to not exist.