Quote:
Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve
Not to dogpile, but I was thinking when this was asked:
If it couldn't be caught with ordinary effort, how would it be interference? This is an interference rule, and there has to be a "play", which means an opportunity to make an out.
So, if no play, then no interference, and no out. Just an unfortunate contact without added penalty.
Wondering why that wasn't apparent.
|
The conundrum, at least in my feeble mind, comes from the rule itself, 8-7-J. It says a runner is out when that runner interferes with a fielder attempting to field a foul fly ball. The Effect following that says that a second out is warranted if the interference is an attempt to prevent a double play.
Further, there is the Exception after the Section 7J-L Note that says the batter is out when the interference prevents the fielder from catching a routine foul fly with ordinary effort.
So, as I read it, the wording leaves the door open for the umpire to judge that the fielder could have made a play on the ball that might not have been routine with ordinary effort. And in that case where the fielder gets the benefit of the doubt, then the umpire could just rule the runner out, but leave the batter up to bat with a strike added to the count (unless there were two strikes).
C'mon, we all have seen infielders make nonroutine, extraordinary catches on fly balls that we judge does not warrant an Infield Fly call. If a runner while off the base hinders that infielder, we will rule interference, wouldn't we?