Interference?

[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).

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by 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).

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.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

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.

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

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.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

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.

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

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?

[CT1]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

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.

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.

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by CT1

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.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by CT1

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

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.

[CT1]

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.