Interference over Foul Territory

[gordon30307]

[QUOTE=PeteBooth]

Which begs the age old question

When are the Official Rules of baseball going to be re-written to "take-out" these ambiguities?

Joe West could just as easily have ruled B1 out and keep R3 at third base.

Big difference for the Offense. In one instance they still have R3 in the other they only have B1.

Pete Booth

You know what they say (I'd like to meet "they" some day) sometimes you have to umpire.

[johnnyg08]

isn't it fair to say that a ball in the air is nothing due to wind issues, a ball hooking, etc...I've seen plenty of balls in the air, in fair territory, land foul...where was the post in here about the ball not being anything which is why he place batter on 1B?

[greymule]

From the Wendelstedt site:

Whether the ball is caught over foul territory is irrelevant, as the ball was dead before it became fair or foul. [The Wendelstedt School teaches baseball rules, not sequence of tenses.]

I would say there is precedent, since a fly ball caught for an out behind the plate is technically not a foul ball, even though we commonly hear, "He fouled to the catcher" or "He popped foul to the catcher," though you could make a case for it since the OBR definition does include "while . . . over foul territory, touches the person of . . . [a] player."

But note that the softball definitions specifically cover INT with a fielder so that they don't have to award the BR 1B on INT when the fly ball is over foul territory. Of course, that opens another strange door: R3, 0 out. Batter hits a pop foul near the 3B line. Runner runs into F5, ump calls INT and foul ball, and the ball lands untouched 6 inches foul and then bounces fair. According to the OBR definition, it's neither fair nor foul, and according to Wendelstedt, award the BR 1B. In softball, it's a foul ball because it was over foul territory when the INT occurred.

I guess the Wendelstedt theory is that you take the book literally. Runner (unintentionally) interferes with fielder attempting to make play on legally batted ball—runner out, BR to 1B. Frankly, I think the BRD instructions (R3 out, foul ball) are more sensible.

[Wendelstedt School]

It is not our contention that the ruling we teach is the most fair, or even sensible. However, there are many instances set out in the rule book where fair play or common sense seem not to apply.
In fact, MiLB may make a ruling on this year's rules test that may contradict our theory. We do not even contend that the return of the BR to bat with a strike added cannot, or should not, occur. We just believe that in the interest of consistency, if that ruling is enforced, the umpire's should also call a second out on the BR if the ball is caught following the interference; whether over fair territory or foul territory. The premise being that we are waiting to see what the results of the play would have been.

[greymule]

It is not our contention that the ruling we teach is the most fair, or even sensible. However, there are many instances set out in the rule book where fair play or common sense seem not to apply.

I hope you do not think that I am finding fault with the Wendelstedt School. You are obviously giving the rules a thorough examination and trying to come up with the best way to handle difficult plays. I'm glad you posed your question on this thread, since I've been tossing that particular play around in my mind for a long time. The point you brought up about the fielder subsequently catching the fly is a good one. Why not give the out? Is immediate INT/dead ball on a foul fly an absolute, even if we end up rewarding the team that violated a rule? Philosophical question.

Someone on this board once said something like, "Sometimes you have to choose between the correct rule book call and the correct ballpark call." This play may be one of those cases.