Because MLBUM says
"It would be better if no member of the offensive team picked up or otherwise touched a foul ball."

The umpire may have judged in this case 'no harm no foul' but the next time may be a different judgement.
There is absolutely no harm in a little preventive umping.

The ball was a) bounding, and b) 6 feet off the line. Not interference. By your own definition, it became a foul ball as soon as it touched the runner. It had no chance of becoming a fair ball, so there is no interference.

Your opinion is wrong, IMO. When the ball touched the runner, it became a dead ball. How is the ball still alive. There was no fielder attempting to make a play, so what does interference have to do with this situation?


Again, where do you come up with this opinion? The fielder had no play on the ball, so you can't have interference. Very OOO.

Now you are taking a rule that only applies the the batter-runner and trying to apply it to a runner. You can't mix and match rules.

Bob Jenkins gave the one correct answer with Rule 7.09(b) being the rule to go by in this case. He also cited the MLBUM interpretation, which is clear and concise. IMO.

That would be 7.09(c) {formerly (d)} you are thinking of.

The website is wrong and should be corrected. They accidentally deleted what used to be 7.09(c), but is now 7.09(b). They deleted what was 7.09(b), which was deleted because another rule already covered it. 7.09(c), which is now 7.09(b) states, "He intentionally deflects the course of a foul ball in any manner."

I won't argue with the rest of your mess ... but this statement is downright asinine. The ball IS foul - it touched the offensive player. By your inference, since when the offense touched the ball intentionally, it still hadn't touched anything ... then if the runner had not caught it, but instead intentionally deflected it INTO fair ground ... then you must have a fair ball ... after all - the ball didn't touch anything in foul ground, right?

Another extension of your asinine statement --- the rule simply says player, it doesn't say which team. So if the intentional touching of a ball over foul ground by the offense doesn't make the ball foul ... well ... then the intentional touching of that same ball by the DEFENSE must not make it foul either.

Just ridiculous. The instigator of the contact with the ball is irrelevant - the instant it is touched by ANY player (whether intentional or not ... whether offense or defense) over foul ground, it becomes a foul ball.

Wow, I said; "it'd be a chore". It appears your wrong, confused, or just really anal in your interp of a "foul ball" vs "a live batted ball"? Or just stirring the ....?

A live batted ball is a ball which comes off a bat, is bounding, flying,hasn't become foul, been interfered with, caught (by a defensive player), nor left the field of play. I admit this is strictly my own interp, but I'm thinking it's right..

A foul ball is one which:
1. "settles" on foul ground, before passing 1st or 3rd.
2. lands on foul ground beyond 1st or 3rd.
3. touches something (not natural to the field) while over foul ground before
passing 1st or 3rd.
IMO: there is a "huge" difference between 1. a ball touching a person and 2. a person touching a ball.

Should the ball be a rocket or take an odd bounce and hits the runner over foul ground, I agee, 100%, that is a foul ball, everytime.

The ball comes to rest (settles) on foul ground, prior to the bag, guess what? Foul ball. R3 picks it up, hey great, thanks runner for keeping the game moving..

But when a runner or BR or coach or on deck batter "intentionally" alter the course, it's interference, everytime. Unless of course you all agree that it had "no chance" of becoming fair, in that case, just make something up and have a nice day.. and continue to skip through games, hoping it never comes into play...IMO if it's moving, it's got a chance. Perhaps that's why good umpires don't sing out "foul ball" on a two hopper towards the corners on the first bounce, cause, "it's got a chance", or on a bunt up the line, that first lands foul..

Ever see a ball hit foul first, but become fair? I hope so, cause it happens.

Consider:
R3, squeeze play. Bunted down the 3rd base line, ball rolling right down the line, R3 slips as he heads for home, as F5 nears the fallen runner and the still rolling ball "in foul territory", R3 seeing he has no chance (should the ball become fair) picks it up. You saying you have nothing, cause it was over foul territory?

R3, two outs, two hopper towards 3B. R3 1/2" onto foul ground and 10' down the line towards HP. You saying, he's okay to catch the ball? Not sure what game your watching, but hope it's never one I'm involved with..

Have I ever ingored a coach knocking down a ground ball when he's 6' into foul territory? You bet, several hundred times. Why? Because of his proximity to the bag; even or beyond. Guess what, a ball that's 6' foul at or beyond the bag is a foul ball, there is no penalty for touching a "foul ball", there is however, a penalty for touching a live batted ball..

The OP, as I said, probably okay, not right, but okay, as in coach didn't know the rules, no harm, no foul type thing.. but a discertation on "why that shouldn't be done", would be the least I'd a done..

As one poster put's it, "that's all I have to say about that."

So if a batter catches the ball off the end of the bat, and it squirts over towards the on-deck batter (in the air), and he catches it, that's interference? The ball hasn't yet settled on foul ground....

The OP is all about the judgement of the umpire. A ball which can't be played on, as in the OP, is foul, in my judgement. Every umpire has his own judgement. Apparently, some of these judgements are much bettr than others!

Not only a chore, but a bore. You couldn't be more wrong in your analysis. You have been told this twice now, but you want to call people "anal" for merely pointing out your folly. There is no way that the original situation is remotely close to being interference, and for you to continue to try to argue your position is pointless.

If the ball had not crossed 3B, or come to a stop, then you have R interfering. Who knows, could hit a rock and rebound fair. This is a deliberate act. If the HC of the other team had come out on you with this very argument, how would you defend it? Crystal balls probably won't be persuasive.

Coaches if in their box are often further up the line.

As I said, this is a technical INT but nonetheless INT regardless of C or R. I have had coaches come out on me for this, one moron in particular. They never do it twice.

You couldn't be more wrong.

Well said.

Correct.

Correct. The proper, technical judgment is the ball has been INT with.

Because if you don't, a savvy HC with an agenda will call you on this technicality.

Look at the official field diagrams in any rule book and you will notice (or should notice) that an officially drawn coach's box is BEFORE the bases so your notion that a coach in his box is OK because he's farther back is based on a lack of knowledge.

You might also want to go watch a few games and keep track of 1) where coaches station themselves 2) Where runners station themselves and 3) how many times a coach is called for interference on a foul ball.

Everyone in the park (except you) knows it's a foul ball. No one is going to (female dog) unless, of course, you call the runner out.

Considering I have overseen the building of two or three dozen ballfields, I think not. Coaches boxes are drawn differently for each age group, MOF. Rs typically move further down the line than a C. Goodbye.

Can't even read a rule book diagram I see.