Interference? Maybe!

[WestMichBlue]

ASA Rules

Situation 1: batted ball rolling just outside the 1B line, F3 comes down line to field ball and collides with B-R before F3 reaches ball. What is your call?

Situation 2: batted ball rulling just outside the 3B line, F5 comes down line to field ball and collides with R1 who is attempting to get back to 3B. What is your call?


Rule 8.2.G: B-R is out when the B-R interferes with a fielder attempting to field a batted ball. Sitch 1: B-R is out for interference.

Rule 8.7.j 1 & 2: The runner is out when the runner inteferes (1) with a fielder attempting to field a batted fair ball, or (2) with a fielder attempting to field a fly ball over foul territory. Sitch 2: foul ball?

Would you have called these two plays different? Why are they different?

If we check the definitions we find that Interference is the act of any offensive player (could be B-R, could be runner) interfering with a fielder (doesn't say with ball over fair or foul territory, on the ground or in the air).

One of the definitions of Foul Ball (D) says that if the ball is over foul territory when interference is called on a runner. (Doesn't say B-R). Of course, one of the definitions of Fair Ball is written the same, except that ball is over fair territory.

It seems to me that one of these two rules (8.2.G or 8.7.j) is wrong. Either we call interference on any offensive player when the ball is live, whether or not it is over fair or foul territory - or we don't call interference when the ball is on the ground over foul territory.

WMB

[AtlUmpSteve]

WMB, I think we get back to the intent and definition of interference; there has to be a play with an opportunity for an out for there to be interference. I think the foul fly ball is self-explanatory; fair or foul, there has been interference with a chance to make an out.

On grounders that result in a foul ball, there never was an opportunity for an out, so there cannot be interference. If the contact occurs while the ball is fair and could have been kept fair absent the contact, we have interference. If the ball ultimately rolls fair, we have interference. But if we have contact on a (momentarily) foul ball that stays fouls, we have either a "no call" or USC.

I don't have a difference in the runner versus batter-runner scenario; just if the ball was fair or foul. Not sure I see a contradiction in the rules you cited relative to my explanation.

[WestMichBlue]

definition of interference; there has to be a play with an opportunity for an out

Definition of interference is hindering the attempt to make a play.

If I am the defender I may wish to trap the ball while foul because I have no play for an out. Or I may wish to hover over the ball and grab it as soon as it rolls fair so that I may get an out. If the offensive player knocks me away from the ball, how can I make a play?

If the ball ultimately rolls fair, we have interference

Since when do we wait for the results of the play to call interference. Our call is immediate dead ball at time of contact.

Not sure I see a contradiction in the rules you cited

A B-R can be called out for interference when the ball is in foul territory. 8.12.G only says batted ball.

A runner has the additional condition that the ball must be either fair or a fly ball over foul territory before interference can be call. (8.7.j)

What is the difference between a B-R and a Runner on identical interference situations in my two examples?


WMB

[IRISHMAFIA]

In both cases, it is nothing.

There is no play to interfere with if the ball is foul. If you kill the play upon contact, the status of the ball is determined at that moment and it must be foul.

For that matter, what is to keep the BR from stepping on the ball to kill it? It is not illegal for a fielder to throw their glove to contact a ball in foul territory to keep it from becoming fair.

[bkbjones]

Originally posted by IRISHMAFIA
In both cases, it is nothing.

There is no play to interfere with if the ball is foul. If you kill the play upon contact, the status of the ball is determined at that moment and it must be foul.

For that matter, what is to keep the BR from stepping on the ball to kill it? It is not illegal for a fielder to throw their glove to contact a ball in foul territory to keep it from becoming fair.

So you would not have USC at any time - never ever ever - if a fielder did that????

[WestMichBlue]

In both cases, it is nothing.

I think that you are wrong, Mike. 8.2.G provides for interference on the B-R regardless of where the ball is located. And the definition of Foul Ball includes a sentence for declaring the ball foul after you have called interference.

There is no play to interfere with if the ball is foul.

The ball was NOT foul; it was live (though over foul territory). It became foul after you called interference, not because it was touched or touched something or stopped rolling.

If you kill the play upon contact,

Why would you kill the play? (Unless you called interference.)

the status of the ball is determined at that moment and it must be foul.

It is not a simultaneous action, it is sequential. (1)The ball is rolling, (2)contact occurs, (3) you call interference and kill the ball, (4) the ball is declared foul because you killed play while the ball (still rolling an untouched) was over foul territory (See Foul Ball definition).

The fair/foul distinction is important IF the B-R is not the one called for interference. If the ball is over foul territory when interference is called then you have a strike on the batter (if they do not already have two strikes). If the ball is over fair territory when interference is called then the batter is sent to 1B.

I just don't understand why a runner on the 3B line committing interference would not be called out the same as a B-R committing the same foul on the 1B side of the field.

WMB

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by bkbjones

So you would not have USC at any time - never ever ever - if a fielder did that????

There is no rule forbidding it. If I remember correctly, this scenario had even been included on the test a couple years back.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by WestMichBlue


I just don't understand why a runner on the 3B line committing interference would not be called out the same as a B-R committing the same foul on the 1B side of the field.

WMB

Feel like you are on a merry-go-round and cannot get off?

You want to call interference with the ball in foul territory. However, to call INT, you MUST kill the play and the bounding ball becomes foul instantaneously and an infielder has no play to make because the ball is foul.

Would you call INT if a coach reached out an snagged a bounding ball in foul territory? I would hope not. The second it is touched, the ball is foul. If the ball is foul, it is not possible for the infielder to have a play. If there is no possible play and the ball is dead, how can you have INT?

Now I guess someone is going to tell me how they need to rewrite the rule, the same rule that has been followed for I don't know how many years with no problem.

[WestMichBlue]

Feel like you are on a merry-go-round and cannot get off?

I don’t know if that is the right analogy; maybe it should be the “chicken ‘n egg” one.


You want to call interference with the ball in foul territory. However, to call INT, you MUST kill the play and the bounding ball becomes foul instantaneously and an infielder has no play to make because the ball is foul.

Apply this rationale to a pop fly and it doesn’t work. The instant you call interference while the ball is over foul territory - the ball is foul, thus the fielder has no play. But we know that is not true. 8.7.j provides the authority to call interference, and an out.

To me, the issue is not fair or foul, but live ball. POE 33 extends the definition of interference to anywhere on the playing surface. After you have called interference and killed play, determining fair or foul is an administrative issue. If the ball was over fair ground when killed you send the batter to 1B. If it was over foul ground you call a strike on the batter. If the B-R is called out for interference, then determining fair or foul is a non-issue.


Would you call INT if a coach reached out an snagged a bounding ball in foul territory? I would hope not.

Actually I did once just to piss off a baseball coach that I didn’t like. And there wasn’t anything he could do about it because the ball had not passed 3B and still had a (theoretical) chance to go fair.


WMB

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by WestMichBlue
You want to call interference with the ball in foul territory. However, to call INT, you MUST kill the play and the bounding ball becomes foul instantaneously and an infielder has no play to make because the ball is foul.

Apply this rationale to a pop fly and it doesn’t work. The instant you call interference while the ball is over foul territory - the ball is foul, thus the fielder has no play. But we know that is not true. 8.7.j provides the authority to call interference, and an out.

Now you are getting ridiculous. It is a different rule and cannot be used in your scenarios.

To me, the issue is not fair or foul, but live ball. POE 33 extends the definition of interference to anywhere on the playing surface. After you have called interference and killed play, determining fair or foul is an administrative issue. If the ball was over fair ground when killed you send the batter to 1B. If it was over foul ground you call a strike on the batter. If the B-R is called out for interference, then determining fair or foul is a non-issue.

It must be fair or the fielder has no play, and as you have pointed out already, INT is the call if the defender has a play. Foul ball=no play. No play=no INT, by rule.

Would you call INT if a coach reached out an snagged a bounding ball in foul territory? I would hope not.

Actually I did once just to piss off a baseball coach that I didn’t like. And there wasn’t anything he could do about it because the ball had not passed 3B and still had a (theoretical) chance to go fair.


WMB

Maybe in baseball, but if that's brought to me as the UIC, you are losing the protest.

[BretMan]

Scouring the net for second opinions, WMB? (I've been following the thread about this play on the NFHS board).

In regards to the play up the first base line:

1) At the moment of contact between fielder and runner, how can we say the ball was foul?

It may have been over foul territory, but its status in regards to "fair/foul" had not yet been determined. It was just a live, batted ball.

2) I don't have a problem with the viewpoint that the fielder is "making a play" on this batted ball.

I will agree, as others have stated, that if the ball is foul, then the fielder can no longer be considered to be "making a play".

But this batted ball isn't foul...yet. Until the point at which the umpire declares it foul, can't we still describe the fielder as "making a play"?

Example: Runner on third, batter hits ball along first base foul line as described. Runner from third will score easily on a slow roller. F2 sees that only chance is to touch ball over foul ground to kill the play and prevent the run.

The ball has not yet been touched, nor declared foul. B/R runs into F1, preventing her from fielding the ball. Ball then trickles into fair territory, allowing run to score.

Hasn't the B/R prevented the fielder from making a play?

[WestMichiganBlue]

"Scouring the net for second opinions, WMB? (I've been following the thread about this play on the NFHS board)."

Not necessarily Brett. I have the answer from the NFHS Rules committee which says that we will call interference on the batter-runner.

However, the same committee member stated that we cannot call interference on a runner under the same circumstances (batted ball over foul territory). The inconsistancy bothers me. Why does the B-R IS OUT rule differ from the RUNNER IS OUT rule?

In that these rules were copied verbatem from the ASA code two years ago I brought up the inconsistancy on this board to get ASA opinions.

WMB

[CecilOne]

I guess I have to agree that the issue is
- the definition of "play" as in "making a play", along with
- "If I am the defender I may wish to trap the ball while foul because I have no play for an out. Or I may wish to hover over the ball and grab it as soon as it rolls fair so that I may get an out. If the offensive player knocks me away from the ball, how can I make a play?" and
- BretMan's example.

I would call INT at the moment of contact because at the moment of contact, I don't know where the ball will go or what the fielder is thinking.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by CecilOne


I would call INT at the moment of contact because at the moment of contact, I don't know where the ball will go or what the fielder is thinking.

Any if that were pertinent, we would all be attending clinics given by Kreskin.

How many times have I read on this board (or in any clinic) that you cannot guess an out?

Seems to me that is exactly what you want to do here.

[WestMichBlue]

The original question here, Mike, is why do we have two different rules, one for batter-runner, and the other for a runner - that have two different answers for the same play?

You, however, have decided that they are ruled the same, even though they are written different. Rule 8.2.G: plainly states that a batter-runner is out when the B-R interferes with a fielder attempting to field a batted ball. Batted ball - not fair, not foul, not on the ground, not in the air - a batted ball.

In addition, you have a Foul Ball definition that states that a foul ball can be determined after interference is called if the ball is over foul territory. It doesn't say on the ground or in the air, simply "while over foul territory."

The ball is not foul because of interference, it is foul because you killed the ball while it was over foul ground. It is an administrative decision that has to be made (fair or foul) because if the interference is not called on the batter, then you need the fair/foul determination to either place the batter on 1B, or call a strike.

I sent this question to a member of the NFHS SB Rules Committee and received the following interpretation: definitely, if the ball is near the foul line and had a chance of becoming fair then you can call interference on the batter-runner. Just as definitely, you cannot call interference on a runner because of the additional words "fair & fly," as in batted fair ball, or foul fly ball. He agreed that the two rules are inconsistant and will add it to the agenda for 2006 committee meeting.

I brought the question over here because these are ASA rules (copied verbatim to the NFHS rule book) and I wanted ASA opinions on why the two rules are different.

I don't care which way we call it; I can go along with NOT calling interference on a ground ball in foul territory on either a B=R or runner. I can go the other way. I would just like the rules to be consistant.

WMB