Interference over Foul Territory

[Wendelstedt School]

This particular play describes the interpretation of when interference occurs by a runner. There is often confusion about the placement of the runners, especially the batter-runner. When a particular situation is ambiguous in the OBR, there are often differing opinions as to how to interpret the rules. This is one of those instances. It was recently brought up in the MiLB Winter Rules Test. Each year, this test serves as a sounding board for umpire supervisors and evaluators as to how the rule is to be enforced on the field. When different people interpret the same rule, it is sometimes split amongst the different schools, and between the Major Leagues and Minor Leagues. We hope to begin offering some insight into these interpretations from our view. This particular situation brought up by the Winter Rules Test actually occurred in a Major League game with umpire Joe West this past season. We agree with his interpretation.
This is not the play in the MiLB rules test, but with the same principle.

Play: R3, no outs, 1-1 count. The batter hits a pop up around third base, right over the foul line. As R3 attempts to return to third he runs into the third baseman.

You can find our interpretation and explanation at http://www.websitetoolbox.com/mb/umpschool.

[greymule]

The ruling the Wendelstedt School gives—R3 out for INT and BR awarded 1B—is consistent with the letter of the OBR book, and with the tenet that the ball is dead and has become simply an undifferentiated batted ball, neither fair nor foul. But as we all know, the letter of the book is often trumped by interpretation or instructions on how to call a particular play. The 2006 BRD, for example, says that R3 is out and the ball is treated as a foul. (The BRD cites significant differences in the way OBR, NCAA, and Fed would rule on the various possible INTs with ball or fielder when the ball is over foul territory.)

It is interesting that NCAA, ASA, and Fed softball have refined their definition of foul ball with an added stipulation: NCAA: "A legally batted ball that while both the ball and runner are in foul territory, the runner interferes with a defensive player's attempt to field a batted ball." ASA/Fed: "A batted ball that while over foul territory, a runner interferes with a defensive player attempting to field a batted ball."

[Unrelated Quiz: How many grammatical or syntactical errors can you find in the NCAA and ASA/Fed definitions?]

[bobbybanaduck]

Originally Posted by greymule

[Unrelated Quiz: How many grammatical or syntactical errors can you find in the NCAA and ASA/Fed definitions?]

as far as FED is concerned, none. FED has it's own language where nothing matters.

[greymule]

FED has its own language where nothing matters.

I'll have to agree with you there, though some other codes are a mess, too. I don't know whether Bob Kanaby is still officially the publisher of the NFHS rule book, but he was when I was doing Fed. I always thought it ironic that the Fed book was so sloppily written, since Bob was principal of the high school where I taught English in the early 1970s, and he emphasized that we should teach the kids to use the language correctly.

The bottom line "reason" was the most interesting part of the conversation.

. . . and that reason was . . . (?)

[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.

[Tim C]

TC wrote:

" . . . as far as FED is concerned, none. FED has it's own language where nothing matters."

In a conversation Sunday with a consultant that helps write NFHS Rules Books I was informed that it is "common knowlege" at the Indianapolis Offices that the Baseball Rules Book is the most poorly written rules book of all they provide.

The bottom line "reason" was the most interesting part of the conversation.

Regards,

[johnnyg08]

so what would the FED ruling be in a case like this?

[greymule]

so what would the FED ruling be in a case like this?

2006 BRD Play 154-307: R3, 0 out: B1 lifts a pop foul fly down the 3B line, where: (a) R3 prevents F5 from catching the fly; or (b) the 3B coach prevents the catch. Ruling: In (a) FED: B1 is out and R3 remains on base. NCAA and OBR: R3 is out and, if B1 has fewer than 2 strikes, a strike is called. In (b), B1 is out at all levels.

Note, however, that the OBR ruling here contradicts the Wendelstedt School ruling (R3 out and B1 awarded 1B).

[bobbybanaduck]

Originally Posted by Tim C

TC wrote:

" . . . as far as FED is concerned, none. FED has it's own language where nothing matters."

In a conversation Sunday with a consultant that helps write NFHS Rules Books I was informed that it is "common knowlege" at the Indianapolis Offices that the Baseball Rules Book is the most poorly written rules book of all they provide.

The bottom line "reason" was the most interesting part of the conversation.

Regards,

i never said anthing about the OBR book. i'll be in boarding group A if anyone is looking for volunteers to say it's poorly written.

[bossman72]

Originally Posted by Tim C

The bottom line "reason" was the most interesting part of the conversation.

Regards,

IMO, I think the reason they have such poor grammar and run-on sentences is so they can cut down on the number of pages they have to print, which will save them some money.

I would rather have a rule book that is spaced out properly with the rules clearly worded than have a crammed up rule book that saves me $4.

Now, I don't really believe 100% that's why they have terrible wording, but that's the only thing I can think of...

[PeteBooth]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by Wendelstedt School

When a particular situation is ambiguous in the OBR, there are often differing opinions as to how to interpret the rules.

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

[johnnyg08]

I find it hard to believe that the worst that could happened in FED...that they get to keep the runner on base...in essence, to avoid a game ending double play with your nine hitter...the runner could literally tackle the F5 for the leadoff hitter/top of the lineup a chance to win the game with the winning run on 3rd/1st/or if they walk him...load 'em up w/ two outs.

Could that happend...or if intentional could you call the batter out and runner...something along the lines of willful and deliberate?

[greymule]

IMO, I think the reason they have such poor grammar and run-on sentences is so they can cut down on the number of pages they have to print, which will save them some money.

I doubt that's the reason. Writing always shrinks with good editing. When I edit an article for a medical journal, the text usually shrinks 10 to 15 percent. In other words, 10 pages shrink to 9 or even 8½.

I would rather have a rule book that is spaced out properly with the rules clearly worded than have a crammed up rule book that saves me $4.

I agree 100%.

the runner could literally tackle the F5

That would be willful and deliberate interference and a double play.