R3 grabs foul ball

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by soundedlikeastrike

A FOUL BALL is a batted ball that settles on foul territory between home and first base, or between home and third base, or that bounds past first or third base on or over foul territory, or that first falls on foul territory beyond first or third base, or that, while on or over foul territory, touches the person of an umpire or player, or any object foreign to the natural ground.

IMO: The ball is not foul, this ball did not touch anything, it was "touched intentionally" by an offensive player.

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.

Originally Posted by soundedlikeastrike

INTERFERENCE
(a) Offensive interference is an act by the team at bat which interferes with, obstructs, impedes, hinders or confuses any fielder attempting to make a play. If the umpire declares the batter, batter- runner, or a runner out for interference, all other runners shall return to the last base that was in the judgment of the umpire, legally touched at the time of the interference, unless otherwise provided by these rules.

IMO: this is a batted ball, still live and not yet foul.

A LIVE BALL is a ball which is in play.
IMO: See above.

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?

Originally Posted by soundedlikeastrike

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;
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.

IMO: the fielder was hindered attempting to make a play on a live batted ball.

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.

Originally Posted by soundedlikeastrike

6.05
A batter is out when --
(i) After hitting or bunting a foul ball, he intentionally deflects the course of the ball in any manner while running to first base. The ball is dead and no runners may advance;

IMO: if the batter can't do it, neither can a baserunner..

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.

[soundedlikeastrike]

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."

[ChucktownBlue]

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!

[fitump56]

Originally Posted by ChucktownBlue

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....

Correct.

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!

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

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by soundedlikeastrike

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."

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.