Foul pop

[Zoochy]

Batter hits a pop up behind home plate. Batter steps out of batter box and stays in foul territory near home plate. As the ball desends, the catcher miss plays the ball and it hits in foul. The ball then bounces back towards fair territory. The ball never makes it into fair because it hits the batter that is standing outside the box. What is the call?

[UmpJM]

Zoochy,

It depends. You didn't give us enough information.

First, when the catcher "misplayed" the pop up, did he touch it? If he did, and the ball was over foul territory when he did, it is an uncaught foul ball and is, therefore, immediately dead. (Were the ball over fair territory when he touched it, it would be a fair batted deflected ball.)

If the catcher did not touch it on the "misplay"....

Second, did the batter not have a reasonable opportunity to avoid the ball after the misplay and bounce, or did he just stand there and watch it hit him, even though he could have easily avoided it?

If the former, it's a foul ball.

If the latter, and you believe the ball would have gone fair if the batter had not allowed it to hit him, call the batter out for interference & return any runners.

JM

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

If the latter, and you believe the ball would have gone fair if the batter had not allowed it to hit him, call the batter out for interference & return any runners.

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.

[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".

[Tim C]

I must admit that I am amazed that anyone would think this is anything but a foul ball.


T

[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.

[scarolinablue]

Originally Posted by Zoochy

Batter hits a pop up behind home plate. Batter steps out of batter box and stays in foul territory near home plate. As the ball desends, the catcher miss plays the ball and it hits in foul.

Pretty much all the information needed is right here...FOUL BALL!

[UmpJM]

Originally Posted by scarolinablue

Pretty much all the information needed is right here...FOUL BALL!

scarolinablue,

There is nothing in that description which tells you whether it is a fair or foul ball.

All you've got is an untouched batted ball which is no longer in flight which has not settled nor passed 1B or 3B. Based on that description, the ball could still have become either fair or foul.

mbyron,

I completely agree that the umpire must judge the batter's action intentional in order to call interference. That's why I said, "... or did he just stand there and watch it hit him, even though he could have easily avoided it?" - which to me means that he intentionally let it hit him.

JM

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

I completely agree that the umpire must judge the batter's action intentional in order to call interference. That's why I said, "... or did he just stand there and watch it hit him, even though he could have easily avoided it?" - which to me means that he intentionally let it hit him.

"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.

[Tim C]

"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."

And I agree 100% with this statement.

It is so much easier when I officiate golf:

We have a rule which says: "with equity" which allows common sense.

T

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by mbyron

"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.

In NCAA that would be a FPSR violation.

[UmpJM]

Originally Posted by mbyron

"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,

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

Of course, a runner may still be guilty of intentional interference even after an infielder deflects the ball if the runner deliberately deflects the ball or allows it to strike him when he could have reasonably avoided it.

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

[scarolinablue]

UmpJM,

I misread the OP as "hits it in foul" as opposed to "it hits in foul."

Once again, methinks I'm falling prey to my own signature...thanks for the correction.

[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!