fly ball interference
I think we answered this last year or before; but I can't find it.
USA Rules only, NFHS is very different; probably others. If a runner interferes with a fielder attempting a fair or foul fly ball which is catchable with ordinary effort; the runner is out and the batter is also out. 8.7.J.3 (1) effect F in the wrong place -------------------------------- Even if there were two outs before the play, the batter has completed a time at bat, so does not bat in the next inning. Is that correct, or does that batter appear again? ----------------------------------- Opinions are no help, already have both sides from very learned sources; need a case or play/clarification documented. |
Quote:
Let me offer this: you mentioned that in NFHS the rule is different; the effect is different in USA Softball if the runner interferes with a fielder on a ground ball. In both cases, interference is called and the batter is placed on first. Both cases result in the batter completing their time at bat. Therefore, why would this instance be any different? In all cases of interference in USA (and fair ball interference in NFHS), the batter has completed their time at bat. |
In USA softball, if a runner interferes with a fielder on a pop fly ball, fair or foul catchable with normal effort both the runner and the batter are out. It is specified in the rule as well as the rule supplements. Has been that way for many years, and yes nfhs is different.
|
Quote:
Now the conundrum. It has been suggested elsewhere that the player in question be the lead-off the following inning. IMO, that is not possible by rule or common sense. To allow that player to bat again, you must ignore the previous action. If you ignore that pop fly in the previous inning, you have no ball put into play and in turn, cannot have INT and if you did not have INT, the previous inning never came to a proper end. :) |
Sorry, missed the second half of your question. Didn't read down far enough.
|
Quote:
|
Along the lines of Irish's rationale, it was the batter's putting the ball into play that made the 3rd out possible (unlike a runner leaving early on a 2-out called 3rd strike).
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Sometimes, when you have rules-lawyers reading rule books and trying to apply a loophole or gotcha to the rule as written instead of the obvious spirit and intent, you have to turn that against them. If the rule specifies that appeals for fourth outs are not allowed (with the exception), then you can make the argument that this is not an appeal. The batter is out by rule and you simply have a fourth out that inning. IRISHMAFIA says this is not the case and the rule apparently forbids all fourth outs (with the exception). |
Quote:
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. Look at the other rule codes for comparison: Over fair territory: NCAA: rule is the same as USA - runner and batter are out NFHS: runner is out, batter is put on first base Bottom line: in all cases, the batter's time at bat has finished when the interference happens on a ball over fair territory. Over foul territory: NCAA and NFHS: runner is out and a foul ball (strike) is called on the batter. Batter remains at bat. If the third out of inning, current batter would lead off. USA: batter and runner are out. This is different than the other two codes, however, the same logic applies as in a fair ball - the batter has completed their time at bat. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Otherwise, saying batting again ignores the out, but both outs occur simultaneously; so ignoring he batter’s out would ignore the runner’s out. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
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. |
Quote:
|
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. |
Quote:
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). |
Quote:
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:19am. |