Interference

[officialtony]

Is it possible that F1 is trying to make his play on the ball in foul territory -
SO R3 CANNOT SCORE ON A PLAY WHERE THE DEFENSE HAS NO CHANCE TO GET HIM OUT???????

I'm guessing that if the ball is played in foul territory, the PU will be sure that R3 is escorted back to 3rd. Therefore, if R1 interferes on F1 - even on a foul ball - in this situation, we have interference.
F1 should be granted the right to make what I would think is a heads up play, rather than risk letting the ball roll back into fair territory - allowing R3 to score easily.

Can the offense take that away from him?
Sorry guys . . . not while I am behind the plate.

[bluehair]

I think that wyatt is on the right track. How can there be a play on a ground ball in foul teritory. The only play is a dead ball. If F1 was trying to make a play, he was trying to make a dead ball play. I don't think that interference (and the penalty) was meant for this kind of non-play.

J/R explains interference without a play. They use examples of a return toss interference or backswing interence, but they also state that it "may also happen in the absence of either, such as a batted ball". And though the batted ball example of interference without a play that j/r gives is not this sitch, they do not restrict this rule interp to those examples given.

If this sitch happened and you have this train wreck at the ball, you can call interference without a play, kill the ball and impose such penalties as in his opinion will nullify the act of interference. Which would be a dead/foul ball, no out.

[fwump]

Very interesting question. I was ready to rule interference on BR until I read the referenced situation in the J/R, which is exactly the same sitch. I think "untouched" is the operative word here. If the ball was touched by F1, and there was contact, you have nothing but a foul ball. Since there was no unfair advantage gained by the BR in this situation you also have nothing.
IMO you could rightly call OI if the ball subsequently rolls fair after F1 was unable to field the ball due to contact by BR.

Mike

[DG]

I have been reading this one with great interest, and researching every source for the definitive answer, and can't find. I can't see a reason for ruling interference on a foul ground ball. That position seems supported by J/R. After that I can't see ruling interference on a ball that then rolls fair, after the contact. On a ball that is rolling foul, that must roll fair for there to be a fair ball, there will be no play on anyone, including BR or R3, at the time the ball rolled fair, regardless of whether there was any contact between fielder and BR.

[officialtony]

I'm trying to not read more into this than the original situation and I am leaning toward agreeing with no Interference. Since the ball rolled foul and was untouched, R3 could not advance anyway. No interference, Foul ball, Batter back in the box. Had the ball rolled fair, than my earlier observation would have to take precedence - for me - to call interference. batter would be out and R3 returns to 3rd - if he had scored.
No interference on a foul ball seems to make sense based on the rulings many here have cited.

Editd to DG:

DG,
Could you reread my post at the top of this page and see if that might influence yur decison to call interference or not - only if the ball DID roll fair after the contact! I am just looking to see if I am trying to stretch " what might have been " too far. I only want the defense to have a fair shot at a potential play. Just looking for your opinion. I will accept your opinion either way.
Thanks.

[Edited by officialtony on Aug 1st, 2005 at 08:24 AM]

[David Emerling]

Originally posted by DG
I have been reading this one with great interest, and researching every source for the definitive answer, and can't find. I can't see a reason for ruling interference on a foul ground ball. That position seems supported by J/R. After that I can't see ruling interference on a ball that then rolls fair, after the contact. On a ball that is rolling foul, that must roll fair for there to be a fair ball, there will be no play on anyone, including BR or R3, at the time the ball rolled fair, regardless of whether there was any contact between fielder and BR.

The problem is that the pitcher is likely trying to pickup the ball while it is still foul for the purpose of preventing R3 from scoring.

If the ball subsequently rolls fair, R3 will score. So, when the BR knocks F1 down it denied him (F1) the opportunity to KEEP the ball foul.

To tell you the truth - I don't know the answer.

I do know that a batter who intentionally makes contact with a foul ball that has a chance of rolling fair is OUT. But that's hardly the same thing as the play in question.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[DG]

Originally posted by David Emerling

The problem is that the pitcher is likely trying to pickup the ball while it is still foul for the purpose of preventing R3 from scoring.

If the ball subsequently rolls fair, R3 will score. So, when the BR knocks F1 down it denied him (F1) the opportunity to KEEP the ball foul.

To tell you the truth - I don't know the answer.

I do know that a batter who intentionally makes contact with a foul ball that has a chance of rolling fair is OUT. But that's hardly the same thing as the play in question.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

I gave up on trying to find a definitive answer to this situation. I could not find it. I think it makes sense to rule interference if, in the umpire's judgement, the ball has a chance of rolling fair at the time of the contact. But if the ball does not appear to have a chance to roll fair no interference should be called, even if it subsequently does roll fair, because the determination of whether it had a chance had to be made at the time of contact. I suspect that by the time it does roll fair there would be no chance to play on R3. Maybe this is a good one for 9.01c.