Quote:
Originally Posted by Skahtboi
Wow! We are going to beat this horse until it is nothing but leather and glue, aren't we?!  |
Problem is, the horse is not dead...
Quote:
Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve
Not completely accurate, and the difference is minimal but significant, but to reword your statement ....
Rule 1 defines it to be a foul ball if the batter-runner interferes with the fielder. Yet, as soon as that act of interfering that is not interference because there is no "play" happens, "poof" the penalty out is not enforced since it is a foul ball by definition and the batter-runner presto-chango becomes a batter.
|
I guess you're not getting what I am saying. Rule 1-FOUL BALL-D is inherently self-contradictory. It defines as a foul ball a situation that requires interference where by definition there is no play, which is required for interference to be called. Since there is no play, there can be no interference, since there can be no interference, Rule 1-FOUL BALL-D can
never apply.
However, knowing that the writers of the ASA Rule Book are not paragons of Vulcan-level logic, I suspect this self-contradiction is (probably) not intended. This leaves us with 3 alternatives for the rule:
1) ASA considers any fielder attempting to field a batted ball to be making a play, hence the interference call is valid, hence the BR / B is out, or
2) It is interference at the time of the contact (since the status of the ball is not yet determined), but the penalty for interference is not enforced because the act of interference itself defined the status of the ball as foul.
3) ASA is using the term "interferes with" sloppily and merely means generically impedes, rather than commits a defined act of interference.
Whichever way, the rule book has issues with this scenario.