Foul interference?

[Shmuelg]

Sitch (pro ball rules):

No outs, R3. Pop fly to foul territory.

Sitch A: R3, off base, unintentionally collides with fielder in foul territory, thus obviously preventing him from catching the ball. What is the call? Foul? Interference?

Sitch B: R3, off base, intentionally collides with fielder in foul territory, thus obviously preventing him from catching the ball. What is the call? Foul? Interference?


My calls:
A: Runner is out.
B: Both runner and batter are out.

What do y'all think?

Shmuel

[VanStanza]

Intentional or not, you can only get one out in these situations...ie. the runner is out. The only way to get more outs is if there are other runners on base, and, as an umpire, you could crazily justify the intent to break up a double play.

[mbyron]

A: Interference. Fielder is protected when fielding a batted ball, so the intent of the runner is irrelevant. R3 out, other runners return, BR returns to the box with a strike on the foul ball (unless he already had 2 strikes).

B: Interference. It's highly unusual to get a double play on a pop foul, and I would probably not call one here. Same penalty.

[Shmuelg]

mbyron,

Thanks for the reply. But what would you do about this rule:

>>Rule 7.08(b) Comment: 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.
If, however, the runner has contact with a legally occupied base when he hinders the fielder, he shall not be called out unless, in the umpire’s judgment, such hindrance, whether it occurs on fair or foul territory, is intentional. If the umpire declares the hindrance intentional, the following penalty shall apply: With less than two out, the umpire shall declare both the runner and batter out. With two out, the umpire shall declare the batter out.
>>

It seems to me that if R3 interfered intentionally, we call both him and the batter out.

Shmuel

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Shmuelg

mbyron,

Thanks for the reply. But what would you do about this rule:

It seems to me that if R3 interfered intentionally, we call both him and the batter out.

Shmuel

The comment to which you refer applies when the runner is ON the base. The OP explicitly states that the runner is OFF base.

In most cases, I will not call a DP on a pop foul, because absent the interference the defense in all probability would not have been able to get one. To award them a DP in this case is, in my judgment, to confer an unfair advantage on the defense.

[Shmuelg]

So, you are saying that if, in the OP, the runner would have remained on base, and the interference intentional, both he and the batter would have been out?

But if the runner, as in the OP, was off base, and the interference intentional, only the runner is out?