Quote:
Originally posted by David Emerling
Quote:
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
|
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.
Fri Aug 05, 2005, 11:02pm
Threaded Mode
