The Official Forum

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)

- Baseball (https://forum.officiating.com/baseball/)

- - Foul pop (https://forum.officiating.com/baseball/57852-foul-pop.html)

Quote:

Originally Posted by mbyron (Post 673556)

The standard for B-INT is different: according to 7-4-1i, we call B-INT when the batter "intentionally deflects a foul ball which has a chance of becoming fair." This rule provides a narrower standard: merely being contacted by the batted ball does NOT constitute B-INT. An intentional act of actively deflecting the ball is required: if he merely fails to get out of the way, he's not out, and it's a foul ball.

I think you're being too narrow on "intent". It doesn't (imo) require an active movement to get in the way or provide a new impetus to the ball. It can include a concious decision to stay put and prevent the ball from completing it's previous path and motion. "unintentional" would include not having time to react, or trying to avoid but failing; other action are not "unintentional", they are "intentional".

It's much the same as a batter getting hit by a pitch -- if the batter has time to move and just stands there, and watches the ball hit him, we don't (or shouldn't) give the base. I'd apply the same general principles in the play at hand.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mbyron (Post 673453)

"Intentional allowing" is not part of the rules. Compare INT with a thrown ball. R1 batted ball to F6, who starts a 6-4-3 DP. If R1 stops and "intentionally allows" the throw to hit him, are you calling INT? I'm not.

You're not getting this batter for INT because he "intentionally allowed" the ball to hit him, you're getting him for failing to move. And that's not what the rule says.

Michael,

The passage I quoted from the MLBUM was referring to a deflected batted ball - where the criteria for judging interference are the same as a batter hit by a batted ball on/over foul territory that the umpire judges could become a fair ball. The offensive player is relieved of his liabilty for interference for coming into contact with the ball, as long as the umpire judges it unintentional.

The MLBUM cite I provided above makes it clear that "intentional allowing" IS part of the proper interpretation of intent when determining interference in situations where intent is relevant.

I completely agree with your "long post", but it's about an undeflected batted ball where intent has no bearing.

JM