fly ball interference

[Altor]

Originally Posted by Big Slick

In USA Softball, it doesn't matter how many outs, the interference on a batted ball ends the at bat. Period. End of story. Don't complicate this rule.

*sigh* I was simply trying to provide an alternative answer to somebody who wants to complicate the rule. You can say this all you want, but some people simply will complicate it without a case play or some other clarification. The OP is asking for an explanation to give to those people.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Altor

*sigh* I was simply trying to provide an alternative answer to somebody who wants to complicate the rule. You can say this all you want, but some people simply will complicate it without a case play or some other clarification. The OP is asking for an explanation to give to those people.

What part do you think isn't clear?

[Altor]

I don't think anything is unclear. Obviously some people do or the OP would have never been posted.

If I had to guess, I would say it's trying to reconcile the fact that one rule says the runner and batter are both out and another rule says there cannot be a fourth out (with the exception).

Hell, after re-reading the thread...you are the one that pointed it out.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Altor

I don't think anything is unclear. Obviously some people do or the OP would have never been posted.

If I had to guess, I would say it's trying to reconcile the fact that one rule says the runner and batter are both out and another rule says there cannot be a fourth out (with the exception).

Hell, after re-reading the thread...you are the one that pointed it out.

From what I understand, the discussion occurred among a group of umpires who worked both NFHS & USA. Some had a difficult time separating the two and insisted you couldn't get two outs. What is sad is that this is not a new rule and there were umpires who did not know this. Once the rule was read along with the associated RS, everyone was hopefully on the same page.

[CecilOne]

Not asking for clarity or explanation.

As I said, just looking for documented agreement from on high;

only about the at-bat being over and that player not batting the next inning.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

Not asking for clarity or explanation.

As I said, just looking for documented agreement from on high;

only about the at-bat being over and that player not batting the next inning.

I don't think you need any of that.

When a runner interferes with a batted ball, that's covered by rule 8-7-J-1. The Effect is that the runner is out, and the BR is put on first base. His/her at-bat is complete.

There's only one exception that doesn't call for the BR to be put on first, and that's on interference with a catchable fly ball with ordinary effort. In that case, the batter's is considered out as well, and, again, his/her time at bat is complete. There is no exception to that exception that says the batter's at-bat is not complete if there were already two outs, and he/she gets to lead off the next inning.

The only scenario by rule that keeps a batter up to the plate after a runner hinders a fielder who is attempting to field a batted ball is if the ball ended up being a foul fly, and the fielder had no legitimate opportunity to make the catch with ordinary effort. Then, and only then, it's ruled a foul ball and the batter remains up to bat (unless, of course, it was a ball bunted with two strikes, or it was a third strike in slow pitch).

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Manny A

There's only one exception that doesn't call for the BR to be put on first, and that's on interference with a catchable fly ball with ordinary effort. In that case, the batter's is considered out as well, and, again, his/her time at bat is complete. .

The problem is USA does not allow the "fourth" out in this scenario. Some would argue that mean the batter leads off the next inning. IMO, cannot happen and rule INT.