Interference?
 

From another board:

Runners on second and third, less than two outs. Batter bunts the ball down the first base line. The ball is rolling in foul territory, and just as the first baseman reaches down to touch it to make it a foul ball, the batter-runner runs by the first baseman and pushes him down to the ground. First baseman can no longer touch the ball as it continues to roll foul, and then the ball reaches and touches the inside corner of the first base bag after the batter-runner has overrun and touched the bag. Both runners score on the play.

What have you got? (Post ruleset with your answer)

OBR:

Interference and an out. Runners return.

7.09 It is interference by a batter or a runner when—
(j) He fails to avoid a fielder who is attempting to field a batted ball,

7.09 PENALTY FOR INTERFERENCE: The runner is out and the ball is dead.

Note that it refers to a batted ball with no distinction as to whether it is fair or foul. Ball was foul at the time of the interference. Ball is dead at the time of interference. Therefore the ball never went fair. Also bases cannot be run when the ball is dead except on an award (5.02 ). This has no award. Runners return.

Is this actually different somewhere?

Digesting this in the 6 or so rulesets, I have OBR / NFHS baseball - out, as you stated.

NCAA - can't find yet... still looking.

Softball - ASA and NCAA - foul ball. NFHS ... still looking.

Honestly, the one that makes the most sense to me is calling this a foul ball. Consider this play but make one change - the ball is 2 feet foul and is never going to be fair... is an out an equitable result? Interference with a fielder fielding a FOUL ball should be an out?

Also ... take the same rule that made you rule an out in the OP. Apply it to this:

Bunted ball is 6 feet foul. Batter sees it foul and turns around and collides with F2 who is retrieving the still-rolling-clearly-foul ball. Do we have an out? If not ... what makes it different from the OP?

there's a specific "interp" that if the batter intentionally contacts a foul batted ball, the batter is not out if the ball has no chance to go fair, but is out if the ball has a chance to go fair.

Apply the same general logic.

Ahh, but there's a fundamental difference, Bob. In your play, the batter contacts the ball to prevent it from going fair and preventing the defense from making a play on him (or other runners) for an out.

In Mike's play, the BR prevented the fielder from rendering the ball foul. At that moment, there couldn't have been a play made to retire anybody. I don't think you can apply the same logic.

What made this ball foul?

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.

NCAA 8-5-d

d. The runner interferes intentionally with a throw or thrown ball, or interferes
with a fielder who is attempting to field a batted ball.

Rule 2 - Interference

A.R. 2—If the batter-runner has not touched first base at the time of interference, all runners shall return to the base last occupied at the time of the pitch.

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."

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?

From Jaksa/Roder:

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:

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

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?

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).