So in softball it's OK to run over a fielder as long as the ball is over foul ground? I think not and thus think the baseball ruling is the proper one.

Run over? No - malicious contact is still malicious contact.

But preventing a fielder from making an out should be an out. Preventing them from causing a ball to become foul should be a foul.

The rules posted on the softball side just say it's a foul ball if the runner interferes with the fielder.

Just a foul ball even on a foul fly ball where an out might have been possible?

To me the rules that were posted just serve to define fair/foul but are not addressing the interference part.

The softball side seems confused.

One person seems confused. The rules, however, don't. It's in the definitions section in all 3 major codes.

PS - a fly ball is a completely different animal than this play, and is (and should be) interference in any code of either sport.

I get the part where it says it's a foul ball. I don't get that the interference is ignored.

I'm just wondering if the focus was on the "foul ball" definition and nothing was checked on the interference part as it was assumed that answered the question. The rule about foul clearly includes a reference to interference but I didn't see any reference to interference rules. Or is it just another strange quirk in SB rules?

Rich, if the rule called for killing play immediately and ruling the runner out for interference, what difference would it make to declare the ball fair or foul? It's a dead ball and runners would have to return to their bases anyway. It would be moot to also rule the ball foul, since an interference call would result in the same effect.

No, I think the softball rule intended for the runner to not be ruled out for interference if the ultimate ruling is to be a foul ball. Poor choice in words to use "interferes" instead of "hinders"

But we just don't know what the result would be until it's touched or passes first or third.

Real life example: Two years ago I was U1 in a HS playoff game. In back-to-back half-innings, we had slow-rolling "cue shots" toward first that were originally well in foul ground. Both ended up hitting the first base bag.

One kicked back into foul ground, with B/R safe at first, the other caromed directly to F3 who was able to retire B/R. Both results benefited the same team, which went on to win a one-run game.

And once again, runners know they're not supposed to intefere with fielders going after a ball.

I'd bet that at the younger levels at least the runners know they have a right to the baseline. :D

But if the runner hinders the fielder from touching the ball while it's in foul territory, what happens afterward shouldn't matter. The ball should be killed at that moment and ruled foul, since that's what it would have been had the fielder not been hindered.

That's how softball rules it anyway. Should be that way in baseball as well.

I understand your point. And I really wouldn't have a problem if baseball rules read that way. But I don't think we want to get into having one rule for a ball that might become fair, and another for a ball that will never be fair.

Don't ignore the possibility that F1/F3 might decide at the last moment to let the ball continue to roll, rather than touching it foul.

PLAY: R3, less than two outs. B1 hits a roller in foul ground up the first base line. As F1 is moving to "touch it foul", B1 collides with F1.

If you rule this a foul, then the offense has potentially gained a huge advantage, since R3 would score if the ball ends up being fair.

Huh? If you rule this a foul ... it's foul. Right then. It doesn't matter where the ball goes after that. There's no advantaged gained by the offense, it's a foul ball.

She's going to touch it foul. Waiting to see if it goes fair only lets the runners have more time to get to the base. 98% chance of no out and the run scoring. Not gonna happen.