Thu Nov 02, 2006, 05:31pm
|
Official Forum Member
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 14,565
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcrowder
I mentioned this play to a friend of mine, and he gave me even better reasoning for calling DB when the fielder is interfered with while fielding what is at that moment a foul ball.
We (including myself) have said numerous times that this ball, while admittedly over foul territory, is not officially a foul ball, as it's not been contacted.
No one has mentioned, however, that on a NORMAL play of runners interference on a fielder fielding a fair batted ball, the ball, while admittedly over FAIR territory, is not officially a FAIR ball, as it has not yet been contacted.
|
Not true. Speaking ASA is it a fair ball based on Rule 1.Fair Ball.D which specifically addresses INT. There is no requirement to be "touched".
Quote:
So following the logic on the normal play, in which we declare dead ball due to the interference, and then rule an out based on the fact that the fielder was trying to field a batted ball that was fair at the moment of the interference... the logical and consistent conclusion on the OP is that we declare dead ball due to the interference, and then simply rule a foul ball based on the fact that the fielder was trying to field a batted ball that was FOUL at the moment of the interference.
|
However, by rule at that particular point in time, there was no interference.
[quote]
__________________
The bat issue in softball is as much about liability, insurance and litigation as it is about competition, inflated egos and softball.
|