Quote:
Originally Posted by Dakota
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.
|
And, I guess you aren't getting what I am saying, either.
You could come up with even more than those three possible alternatives if you wanted to stretch it further, but only one reasonably passes muster.
1. ASA defines a "Play"; in fact, that definition is newly added in 2007. It doesn't include this interpretation, so it isn't that.
2. Since ASA requires a "Play" to have the act of "Interference" that results in the penalty out, and at the moment of contact the definition establishes a foul ball, so there is no "Play", there isn't a penalty out to be enforced. It isn't "not enforced", there isn't one to enforce.
3. Ding-ding-ding!!! The remaining alternative is clearly the winner of the alternative ruling contest. This rule definition (Foul Ball D) misuses the word "interferes" when defined "Interference" cannot be the result.
If you simply accept that conclusion (your #3), all else works together, and there are no contradictions in the Rules 1, 7 and 8 in this play, as you previously stated; and Rule 10 application isn't necessary