Foul pop

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

Michael,

Why do you think this should be treated any differently than:

This is from the MLBUM discussion of a runner being hit by a deflected batted ball, but I would think the same principle would apply - with equity.

JM

John, I apologize in advance for the length of this post. I've tried to cut it down.

I certainly understand why you see an analogy here: we have two instances of a player being hit by a batted ball. And the MLBUM even uses the helpful expression "intentional interference" (which is not, of course, a term from the rule book).

I'm going to stick to FED, however, assuming that Zoochy's OP concerns a play in a FED game. For now I'm ignoring different codes (I don't do NCAA; ask me again in summer about OBR ).

With that said, I would suggest that your question is ambiguous. You've asked why we treat a runner (including BR) contacted by a batted ball in fair ground (call this R-INT) differently than a batter contacted by a batted ball in foul ground (call this B-INT).

If you're asking why WE treat the two cases differently, I can answer that as a baseball umpire. We treat the cases differently because the rules do. According to 8-4-2k, we call R-INT when the runner "is contacted by a fair batted ball" (before it touches an infielder, etc. etc.). This rule clearly puts the burden on the runner to get out of the way, and negligence is still R-INT. No intentional act required: if he fails to get out of the way (etc. etc.), he's out.

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.

OTOH, if you're asking why the RULES treat the cases differently, then I have to answer that as a baseball theorist, since that's a question about the intentions of the rules makers. I would speculate (and that's what theorists do) that the difference lies in the status of the ball. With R-INT, we KNOW it's a fair ball, and we're giving the defense every chance to field it. With B-INT, in contrast, we do NOT know that it's a fair ball.

Or maybe that's wrong: maybe the rules makers are thinking about the difference between a runner and a batter: R-INT applies to runners, who have nothing better to do than to get the hell out of the way of batted balls, fielders, etc. B-INT applies to batters, who are busy at the plate.

Or maybe both? Speculation's a b!tch.

I will also note that 7-4-1i seems to presuppose that the status of the ball is foul simply because it has touched foul ground. After all, a "foul ball which has a chance of becoming fair" isn't really foul, is it -- at least, not till it touches the batter standing in foul ground!