[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

So, I disagree with that initial premise; the batter is NOT out when it is declared fair, the batter is out when she hits a ball that can be judged an IFF in an IFF situation. The ball is assumed fair until it is not; and THEN, if determined not fair, the batter is not out. That is why we declare the IFF even if unsure it will be fair; we can always reverse that status after the fact with less jeopardy. And, thus, the batter is out, even if not declared initially; because she hit a ball that can be (and should be, and therefore IS) an IFF.

This is similar to our instruction that every pitch is potentially a strike; and we should consider it a strike, until it isn't.

These basic premises allow us to see "border line" situations as possible strikes and outs; it helps us maintain the edge to see the outs (and strikes), wherever and when ever they occur. It may be easy to see balls and safes whenever there is a close play; but that isn't why we are there.

OK. So in your mind the batter is out prior to the interference... what play did that batter interfere with then? The catching of the ball would not have produced another out.