Curious in some opinions on the following play.

R3, no outs. Swinging bunt down the 1st base line. Ball is rolling just to the right of the foul line (in foul territory) and has a chance of becoming fair. The pitcher approaches the ball and is attempting to pick it up to keep it foul when he collides with the batter-runner. The pitcher is knocked down, preventing him from picking up the ball. The ball continues to roll, yet, remains in foul territory.

Interference?

Obstruction?

Nothing?

Would it matter if the ball eventually rolls into fair territory?

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[Edited by David Emerling on Jul 28th, 2005 at 12:21 PM]

That's a good one Dave. I'm still scratching my head...

Since F1 is fielding the ball (and it was a swinging bunt), I'm assuming this stitch didn't occur in the general vicinity of home plate, which "no call" is generally made if contact occurs.

If F1 was in the act of fielding the ball (per your stitch), he should be protected and interference would be called. What I don't know for sure, is if the fact it's also a foul ball would have an impact on the ruling? I guess I would get an earful when I called the ball dead on the interference and then the runner out.

"Offensive Interference is an act by the team at bat, which interfers with, obstructs, impedes, hinders or confuses any fielder attempting to make a play." OBR2.00

Had the ball been a pop-up and foul would it have been any different. The ball was being played on, and the status of the ball was not determined until it was touched by the fielder, passed first base or a ball that settled on either fair or foul territory.

Based only upon what was reported, I would have had to call interference.

<i> Originally posted by David Emerling </i>

<b> Curious in some opinions on the following play.

R3, no outs. Swinging bunt down the 1st base line. Ball is rolling just to the right of the foul line (in foul territory) and has a chance of becoming fair. The pitcher approaches the ball and is attempting to pick it up to keep it foul when collides with the batter-runner. The pitcher is knocked down, preventing him from picking up the ball. The ball continues to roll, yet, remains in foul territory.

Interference?

Obstruction?

Nothing? </b>

The applicable rule reference is:

<i> OBR 7.08
Any runner is out when_ (b) He intentionally interferes with a thrown ball; or hinders a fielder attempting to make a play on a batted ball; A runner who is adjudged to have hindered a fielder who is attempting to make a play on a batted ball is out whether it was intentional or not. </i>

Notice the rule doesn't say anything about whether the ball is Fair / Foul and for very good reason otherwise on a foul pop-up a runner would purposely interfere with a fielder to avoid being out.

We do not call INTERFERENCE "after the fact". When we judge interference it is called right away and the ball is Immediately dead in most instances. When Interference is called SOMEBODY is out in this case B1.

Pete Booth

Pete wrote:

" The applicable rule reference is:

<i> OBR 7.08
Any runner is out when_ (b) He intentionally interferes with a thrown ball; or hinders a fielder attempting to make a play on a batted ball; A runner who is adjudged to have hindered a fielder who is attempting to make a play on a batted ball is out whether it was intentional or not. </i>

We do not call INTERFERENCE "after the fact". When we judge interference it is called right away and the ball is Immediately dead in most instances. When Interference is called SOMEBODY is out in this case B1. "

Pete Booth



Tony writes:

Pete I agree with everything but your last sentence.
Shouldn't the RUNNER be out per OBR 7.08?
I would have ruled interference on the runner and called him out and placed the batter on 1st. Would that have been the wrong procedure?
Did you mean R1 and not B1.

Thanks for clearing this up for me.

[Edited by officialtony on Jul 28th, 2005 at 09:10 AM]

<i> Originally posted by officialtony </i>

<b> Tony writes:

Pete I agree with everything but your last sentence.
Shouldn't the RUNNER be out per OBR 7.08?
I would have ruled interference on the runner and called him out and placed the batter on 1st. Would that have been the wrong procedure?
Did you mean R1 and not B1. </b>

When B1 HIT the ball his status is no longer that of a batter but a runner. B1 is more frequently described as a BR (Batter turned runner).

In the scenario given, B1 is the one who interfered so the call is:

1. TIME
2. That's Interference
3. B1 is out
4. R3 returned to third base

NOTE: the status of the ball was not yet determined, so returning R3 to third might be a moot point if the ball remained foul.

Pete Booth

OOPS!
My bad.
I had R3 interfering.
So sorry.
Please return to interacting with others who can read the posts correctly.
You are 100% correct.

Hold it....
 

In the J/R - page 100 in my edition, example 1 under "Examples: Runner/Fielder Contact, Not Interference"

"The batter chops a ball along the first base line in foul territory. The pitcher is reaching for it, but cannot touch it because of contact by the BR. The ball, untouched, rolls foul: no interference, foul ball."


Hmmmmmmm.

Off to the LOONY Bin! Whaaaaaaa
 

WHAT the the Flying @#horse g@#randma is a STITCH?

A stitch ..
 

is another word for 'Thread' in this instance, it is also a word used in sewing ie. stitch up a pant leg, and in the medical profession he took 25 stitches. But on a forum it is talking about the thread - or the post. I cannot find an reference to the internet lingo for this word, but that is to what it refer's.

here is the definition I could find:

STITCH

NOUN:

A single complete movement of a threaded needle in sewing or surgical suturing.

A single loop of yarn around an implement such as a knitting needle.
The link, loop, or knot made in this way.
A mode of arranging the threads in sewing, knitting, or crocheting: a purl stitch.
A sudden sharp pain, especially in the side. See Synonyms at pain.
Informal An article of clothing: wore not a stitch.
Informal The least part; a bit: didn't do a stitch of work.
A ridge between two furrows.
VERB:
stitched , stitch·ing , stitch·es
VERB:
tr.


To fasten or join with or as if with stitches.
To mend or repair with stitches: stitched up the tear.
To decorate or ornament with or as if with stitches: "The sky was stitched with stars" (Mario Puzo).
To fasten together with staples or thread.
VERB:
intr.

To make stitches; sew.

IDIOM:
in stitches Informal
Laughing uncontrollably.

Re: Hold it....
 

Do you think the ruling would be any different if the ball eventually rolled into FAIR territory even though, at the time of the "interference", the ball was in foul territory?

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

It's most likely to be a mis-spelling of "sitch" which is a common abbreviation of "situation" on official's boards.

"Stitch" another word for "thread"?

Lah me.

It's my understanding that if the BR intentionally contacts a batted ball that has a chance of becoming fair, he's guilty of interference - Correct?

Re: Re: Hold it....
 

Maybe yes - but I can't find anything in the J/R about it. The fact that the ball was foul and stays foul seems to make this a no interference sitch according to J/R.

Then again maybe F1 isn't considered to be making a play on a foul ball on the ground since there is no play to be made.

When the ball crosses to fair maybe F1 becomes protected at that point but I have no citation on that.

Good question here, I would say, and not yet a clear resolution.

Pete Booth has the rule reference that seems to say it is interference regardless of the fair/foul status of the ball at the time of contact...and Wyatt has a J/R reference that seems to say it is not interference if the ball stays foul.

And so,.....

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.

interference without a play
 

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.

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

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.

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]

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.