Interference?

[DG]

Tell me more about the BR pushing the fielder to the ground part?

If we don't rule interference for BR interfering with a fielder reaching to pick up a batted ball in foul territory near the line that has a chance of going fair and it rolls into the bag, how can we rule foul ball?

If it has no chance of going fair then I would think foul ball, and of course the part about it rolling into the bag would not have occurred, but I would still like to hear more about the push to see if there is something more I need to take into consideration.

[jicecone]

Originally Posted by DG

Tell me more about the BR pushing the fielder to the ground part?

Exactly, except for the discussion about whether or not the "push to the ground" is malicious, it is certainly in line with the NFHS interference definition. 2-1-21b. "when a runner creates malicious contact with any fielder, with or without the ball, in or out of the baseline;" or 8-4-2g "hinders a fielder on his attempt to field a batted ball."

[UMP45]

Manny how could you call this ball foul?

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by UMP45

Manny how could you call this ball foul?

It was foul at the time of the interference. The interference caused an immediate dead ball. Therefore nothing else happened - including it touching 1B. So what else could it be?

[CT1]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

It was foul at the time of the interference.

No it wasn't. It's neither fair nor foul until it's touched by a fielder or reaches first (or third) base. The fact that the INT happened while the ball was in foul territory is irrelevant.

Runners know they're not supposed to interfere with a fielder attempting to make a play. Punish the guilty & quit trying to find ways give them an undeserved break.

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by CT1

No it wasn't. It's neither fair nor foul until it's touched by a fielder or reaches first (or third) base. The fact that the INT happened while the ball was in foul territory is irrelevant.

Runners know they're not supposed to interfere with a fielder attempting to make a play. Punish the guilty & quit trying to find ways give them an undeserved break.

OK - ball was in foul territory at the time of the interference.

So the interference still created a dead ball. B-R is out. Runners return.

Actual fair/foul doesn't matter now because the ball is dead.

Outcome doesn't change.

The guilty are punished.

Where do you think there was any break - deserved or undeserved - gained or advocated?

Happy now?

[MD Longhorn]

Seems the answer to this one is:

Baseball (all codes) - out.
Softball (all codes) - foul ball.

Softball makes more sense, imho.

In every other interference I can think of, the logic behind calling someone out for it is that they prevented the possibility of an out happening. If the ball is in foul territory on the ground, there's no possibility of an out happening - an out for interference makes no sense to me (although I'll call it in baseball because I'm supposed to).

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by UMP45

Manny how could you call this ball foul?

From Jaksa/Roder:

It is interference by a runner (batter-runner included) if:

(3) such runner hinders a protected fielder during a fair or catchable batted ball. (7.08b) (7.09j).

Examples: Runner/Protected Fielder Contact, Not Interference

1---- The batter chops a ball along the first base line in foul territory. The pitcher is reaching for it, but cannot touch it because of contact by the batter-runner. The ball, untouched, rolls foul: no interference, foul ball.

So here is one reference from J/R that clearly mentions that 7.08(b) and 7.09(j) apply to a "fair or catchable batted ball." To them, the only time you can possibly have interference when the ball is in foul territory is if the ball is in the air because a play can be made on it--catching it for an out.

What I don't like about their position is that since there is no interference possible on a ball in foul territory, the play remains live and the final determination is made once the ball ends up fair or foul. If it were "incidental contact", I might agree with them. But here, the runner did something intentional, and I don't feel he should benefit from his action. I suppose in those rule sets that recognize the concept of "malicious contact" you can rule that's what happened in the OP.

But suppose the contact is intentional but not enough to warrant being labeled malicious if the BR has no intent to hurt the fielder. Then you're left with what I feel is a reasonable compromise to J/R's interp, and that's to go ahead and kill it and rule foul.

What's ironic is that in all softball codes that I'm familiar with--NCAA, ASA, and NFHS--that's exactly what they call for. For example, the NCAA Softball book says a ball is foul when:

1.51.7 Is in foul territory when a base runner in foul territory interferes with a defensive player’s attempt to field a batted ball.

Why we can only find that in softball and not baseball is a mystery.