Foul pop

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Citation?

Applying 7-4-1i, I would say that the batter must intentionally prevent the foul ball from becoming fair before he's guilty of INT. Mere negligence in failing to get out of the way is not sufficient on this play.

"Willful indifference" is generally viewed as equivalent to "intentional" (rules-wise).

[Zoochy]

The catcher did not touch the ball. And the batter did not display any "Willful indifference". The ball did hit the batter in foul territory. But the batter did not have a clue (in my opinion) as for the location of the ball nor the catcher.
Thus I would say "Foul Ball".

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

"Willful indifference" is generally viewed as equivalent to "intentional" (rules-wise).

I dunno, Bob.

"He could have moved" ≠ "he intentionally deflected a foul ball which has a chance to become fair." Not easy to sell, either.

If the rules makers wanted us to call INT on this play, they could have made the rule like 7-4-1f, which puts the burden on a base coach, for example, to get out of the way. I see a significant difference between "willful indifference" when it comes to avoiding a fielder and "willful indifference" in avoiding a foul ball.

This rule is more like INT on a thrown ball: the player must actively do something to deflect the ball, not merely stay put.

Usually your account of what's "generally viewed" is sufficient for me, but I'm having trouble buying this one, given the clear language of 7-4-1i.