I knew the answer to Question #39, but I don't like it. The offense can actually benefit by deliberately committing interference to prevent a double play:

No outs, R1 on 3B, R2 on 2B, R3 on 1B, B4 pops up near the 1B line and runs into F3, knocking the ball loose to prevent a double play. R1 has touched home plate before the collision.

a. Dead ball, B4 is out, R1, R2 and R3 must return to the base they had at the time of the pitch.
b. Dead ball, B4 is out, R2 is out, R3 is returned to 1B, R1 scores.
c. Dead ball, B4 is out, R1 is out, R2 is returned to 2B and R3 is returned to 1B.
d. Dead ball, B4 is out, R1 scores; R2 and R3 advance at their own risk.

The answer is "b." Because R1 scored before the interference, the runner closest to home becomes R2. So the inning is over but the run scores, and apparently the defense has no recourse to appeal R1 leaving before the "catch," since there was no catch.

I have been considering variations of this play:

A. If the play had started with 1 out, would R1's run still count? The BR would be out #2 on the collision, all force plays would be off, and out #3 (R2) would therefore be a time play.

B. What if F3, knocked to the ground, caught the ball anyway and quickly threw to F5 on the appeal of R1 leaving too soon?

C. What if the pop had been halfway between the 1B line and the mound and B4 ran 10 feet out of the baseline to crash F3? Imagine the scored tied in the bottom of the 7th.

D. What if B4 brushed F3 on the way by, enough for you to call interference but not enough to prevent the catch and subsequent appeal at 3B?

Or am I missing some avenue the defense has to have the run nullified?

Also:

E. Would anything change if the play had unfolded in exactly the same way, but <i>after</i> IFR had been called?

F. What if R1, after touching home plate, had begun to retreat to 3B at the time of the interference?

Remember that in all these plays the runner from 3B has crossed the plate before the interference.

I went back to my OBR references to reassure myself that the run cannot score in baseball. If the BR has not reached 1B at the time of the interference, runners return TOP. For willful and deliberate interference, they would also call somebody else out, I guess the runner on 3B TOP, where the logical play would have been.

c) Dead ball B4 is out R1 is out and R2 and R3 are returned to base 2 and 1 .
On interference by a BR the runner closest to home, at the time of the pitch is put out .
When is a batter runner out on an IFF.Not when it is called ( if so then B would be correct) but when the ball is fair ie when it touches a player in fair territory.
This happened when the collision occured so in fact we have interference by a BR not a player who was already out (and therefore ceased to be a BR .)
(NOTE : This is ISF but I would expect ASA would have much the same rulings

The batter-runner is out when the IF is declared. (ASA 8.2.I) It is negated if the ball becomes foul.

<b>c) Dead ball B4 is out R1 is out and R2 and R3 are returned to base 2 and 1 .
On interference by a BR the runner closest to home, at the time of the pitch is put out .</b>

ISF has a sensible rule, but for ASA, the answer (b).

So there is a difference ASA and ISF .
However now the debate on when is a batter out when IFF .
I am interested in that and I dont have an ASA rule book .
ASA 8.2.1.
Does it actually say BR is out when IFF declared .
I will troll through ISF rule book because it is important to a decision on the effect of the rule as noted in an answer b or c .

Why is the inning over?

<b>Why is the inning over?</b>

My mistake. Two outs. I was anticipating my contention that even if the play started with one out, the run would count though the inning would be over.

My Take
 

ASA 8-7-P

BR is out for the IFF. BR intentionally interfered with F3's ability to make a play on another runner. Dead ball. Runners returned to the last base touched at the time of the interference. Runner closest to home at the time of interference (now R2) is out. R1 scores.

So my answer would be B.

SRW - your ruling is right, by the book (and by the test).

However, I believe that if the umpire felt that the interference was intentional for the express purpose of scoring that run (and the umpire was SURE of it, and had great big cohones), he could rule R1 out and place R2 at 2nd, under the umbrella of not allowing the offending team from benefitting from a transgression (rule 10 dot something if memory serves).

But if you were making such a ruling, you'd better be very clear which rule you were using, because if this went to protest, and your ruling was the "normal" interference rule, you would be overturned.

I would think you could apply 10-1-L (or 11-1-L or whatever it is) even if the interference is not intentional. It's still benefiting from violating the rules. If you can't apply the rule here, where can you apply it?

On the other hand, the test answer does say to score the run. And it also says, "to prevent a double play," which appears to indicate intent on the part of the runner.

No outs, R1 on 3B, R2 on 2B, R3 on 1B, B4 pops up near the 1B line and runs into F3, knocking the ball loose to prevent a double play. R1 has touched home plate before the collision.

All the NFHS guys should be use to this type of question. Read it again. Does it not say "knocking the ball loose"?

Loose from where? Do you think F3 may have already caught the ball? If not, there would be no need to mention it. Therefore, it is a dead ball, R2 is declared out, R3 returns to 1B. That's a double play. Even better, a possible appeal may still exist for R1 leaving 3B early.

Don't care about baseball. You want to reference any set of their rules, fine. However, it would be nice if you kept it to yourself. Interjecting them into a softball discussion adds nothing, but consternation to the less-than-seasoned softball umpires.

Uh, Mike... who even said a single word about baseball?

The question is not whether the test is right - it's about whether this is fair and what an umpire could/should do to rectify the fairness, if anything.

Surely you can come up with an instance where the ASA correct ruling (BR out, R2 out, R1 scores) benefits the offense.

My biggest problem with this question is that there is way way too much left open to assume. You must assume the ball was caught, even though all pops aren't caught (just because you can probably infer that F3 has possession when contact occurs due to the words "Knocks loose", you can't necessarily infer that the ball didn't bounce first.) There's no mention about whether umpire called/ruled IFF, which is important to the question. Heck, it doesn't even say whether the ball was fair or foul, which COULD matter.

The OP.Actually, it is a pretty straight-forward rules question, in my view. Why? Why? How?

If we set aside the presumption that the correct call by rule is unfair, the question itself is, as I said above, pretty straightforward.

The BR collides with a fielder in the act of fielding a batted fly ball that has double play written all over it. Was it double play because it was an IF and runners had left their bases? Probably, but does it matter to the call? The rule is 8-2-F. 8-7-J or -P might also be applied.

As to the concern about unfair, IF the ball was caught and then knocked loose, then R1 does not score on proper appeal, but the umpire should be clear that he is ruling a catch, so the defense knows what the call is.

Fairness, while preferred, is not necessarily applicable to all situations. Don't believe me, ask some coaches.

Quote:

Surely you can come up with an instance where the ASA correct ruling (BR out, R2 out, R1 scores) benefits the offense My biggest problem with this question is that there is way way too much left open to assume. You must assume the ball was caught, even though all pops aren't caught (just because you can probably infer that F3 has possession when contact occurs due to the words "Knocks loose", you can't necessarily infer that the ball didn't bounce first.) There's no mention about whether umpire called/ruled IFF, which is important to the question. Heck, it doesn't even say whether the ball was fair or foul, which COULD matter.

I warned everyone that this test, while shorter, some of the questions were vague.

[Edited by IRISHMAFIA on Feb 24th, 2006 at 11:21 AM]

I think we assume the ball was caught because we're told it was knocked loose. I also assume that "to prevent a double play" means "in a deliberate attempt to prevent a double play." I think the lack of mention of IFR in the test question was an oversight on the part of ASA. And apparently it might make a difference, since the BR would then have interfered after being called out.

I mentioned OBR to show how its rule prevents the unfairness. Personally, I find it instructive to study rules differences, and I read the BRD all the time. Baseball and softball are different games, but knowing how each sport handles a certain situation can solidify each rule in my mind. I don't see anything wrong with that.

Now we're distinguishing between a play in which the collision occurs before the catch and one in which the collision occurs after the catch? Is an appeal at 3B permitted in the latter but not the former?

Tie score, bottom of 7th, one out, Abel on 3B thinks the squeeze is on and takes off with the pitch. BR swings and pops to F3 fair. Abel crosses the plate. As F3 is waiting for the ball to come down, BR collides with F3 and prevents the catch.

OK. BR is out on the interference, but Abel scores and the game is over. I contend that this should not be possible. You better call 911 before making that call.

And if we're making distinctions between a collision that comes after the catch and a collision that prevents the catch, what if BR knocks F3 down--immediate interference--but F3 catches the ball anyway and immediately throws to 3B to appeal the runner leaving too soon? Nullify the catch, disallow the appeal, and score the run? I want to see somebody make that call.

Now if, regardless of the timing of the collision, the runner from 3B still is liable to be called out on appeal, then I don't have a problem with the ruling. That would still leave open the question of whether or not she could return to 3B, but at least the offense could not benefit from violating a rule.

I agree that whether or not it was an IFR situation and whether or not the ball was caught can impact future possible rulings resulting from the play given, but I don't see how they have any impact on the actual ruling for the situation described.

We have interference by the BR prior to reaching 1B. Dead ball. BR out, if obviously intended to prevent a DP, R2 out. R1 scores. 8-2-F.

If IFR, or if the ball is actually caught, then 8-7-P, but same result. Dead ball. BR out. R2 out. R1 scores.

The only contention, it seems to me, is a "what if" that is not covered by the question... What if the defense appeals R1 for leaving early on a caught fly? If the fly was caught, then honor the appeal, 3rd out, run does not score. If the fly was NOT caught, then deny the appeal.

I do have a question, though, suppose this was the bottom of the 7th, tie score and IF was called or should have been called (IOW, ball catchable with ordinary effort, but was not due to the interference)?

Is (as was suggested earlier in this thread) application of 10-1-L supportable?

Note that 10-1-L reads This would read to me that the umpire may choose to NOT impose the penalty, not that the umpire may choose to "set things right" in the more general sense.

The penalty here is not the problem. It is the timing of the interference. The offense benefitted by interfering AFTER the score, not by having a penalty imposed.

[Edited by Dakota on Feb 24th, 2006 at 12:26 PM]

<b>This would read to me that the umpire may choose to NOT impose the penalty, not that the umpire may choose to "set things right" in the more general sense.</b>

Good point. It's apparently either impose the penalty or don't impose the penalty. In the play in question, it wouldn't be possible to refrain from invoking the penalty. However, in the case where BR knocks F3 down but F3 catches the ball anyway and gets the runner from 3B out on appeal, ignoring the interference would indeed "set things right."

Except that if you call the interference at the moment BR knocks F3 down, you've stopped play. The bell has already rung.

With the winning run on 3B in the bottom of the 7th and one out, the offensive coach should remind both runner and batter than if the ball is popped fair in the infield and close enough to the batter, the runner from 3B should streak home and the batter should run out and interfere in whatever way is necessary to prevent the fielder from catching the ball. The coach would risk ejection and a place in infamy, but his team would win the game.

[Edited by greymule on Feb 24th, 2006 at 01:29 PM]

Why/How?

For starters, because if the ball was not actually caught, and it was not actually fair, it's a completely different situation.

Not if it is a fly ball. The interference happened before fair/foul comes into play.

<b>Not if it is a fly ball. The interference happened before fair/foul comes into play.</b>

We can't let R1 score if BR prevents F3 from catching a ball that would have been foul except for the interference.

But what do I know? Maybe we can!

It's a fly ball! It is not foul until it is actually uncaught. Therefore, the interference causes it to be foul, but only after the interference, so the ball was already dead. Or am I becoming too convoluted about this?

See 8-7-J-2.

<b>Or am I becoming too convoluted about this?</b>

The rule is at the root of the problem.

R1 crosses the plate on pop toward 1B. BR knocks F3 to the ground. You call interference. Sitting 5 feet in foul territory, F3 makes the catch.

Score the run?

I seem to recall a thread of a year or two ago where the issue of the defense playing through the interference and making further outs was discussed, and one member suggested we should not be so fast in declaring the ball dead to avoid rewarding the offense for the violation.

One downside (besides not following taught mechanics) is it may make it appear the umpire is biased or at least making up his calls to suit the situation.

For example, if you wait, but the defense does NOT make the play, and you then call interference late, do you appear to be deciding after the fact to call the runner out?

<b>I seem to recall a thread of a year or two ago where the issue of the defense playing through the interference and making further outs was discussed, and one member suggested we should not be so fast in declaring the ball dead to avoid rewarding the offense for the violation.</b>

That's sure tempting to do, Dakota, but I was admonished decades ago <i>never</i> to let play continue. You never know what might happen after your "no call" or "delayed call." Inevitably, the teams will get wrapped up in what happened afterward, and it could be very difficult to set the clock back.

The problem is not our mechanics. It is the rule itself.

Remember, this is a question on an umpire test. Do you think the IF was called? If you were talking to a newbie and s/he asked that question, I would guess most on this board would respond, "It better have been!" ;)

Convoluted? Apparently, since you now have F3 knocked to the ground in foul ground. This what happens when counter scenarios enter a conversation.

You all remind me of a bunch of liberals, never believing what they see can be all there is. :) Must be a conspiracy to take over the umpiring ranks by the UAE! Next thing you know it will be the ports and Disneyworld!

Ding ding ding. Exactly.

Bases loaded, no outs, R1 crosses the plate before anything else happens, F3 settling under a foul pop (ok, for those definition guys... a pop up over foul ground). BR, seeing that R1 is dead meat for leaving early (as is R2 and R1), plows F3 before he can make the catch.

BR out for INT. By RULE, R2 is out and R1 scores. And R1 cannot be ruled out for leaving early, as there was no catch (EVEN if F3 actually catches the ball - the catch never happened - it was after the immediate dead ball caused by the INT).

If a better application of the rule prohibiting a team from gaining advantage from their transgression exists, I'm unaware of it. Mike's "sometimes life isn't fair" argument is a horrible excuse.

And the OP is not THAT far different from this one (since the timing and even existence of the catch/no catch is not clear, the call of IFF is not clear, and the location of the ball ("near the 1B line") is not clear enough.

<b>a bunch of liberals, never believing what they see can be all there is</b>

Mark this moment. Mike and I agree on something.

I see a guy on death row for the serial murders of a dozen little kids.

The liberal sees much more: a guy who needs counseling because he is suffering from HFS.

Yes, we can (and have) added to the test scenario to expand the question to various what ifs and fairness issues and possibly a hole in the rule book.

But, way back before I indulged myself by participating in the what ifs, I pointed out that as a test question, it was not that complicated, and the answer was clear, and all the unanswered vagueness in the question's scenario made no difference whatsoever to the call.

Was IF called? Who cares? Call is the same (maybe the rule reference is different in the event of a protest, but the call is the came).

Was the ball caught? Who cares? Call is the same (same maybe as above).

Was the fly ball over foul territory? Who cares? Call is the same.

Now, admitedly, greymule's original post took no issue with the call; he was raising the fairness question, which may or may not exist in the question's scenario. For example, it does NOT exist if the catch was made, since the defense can remove the run by proper appeal.

Nope, R1 cannot score on a foul ball.

But the phrase, "knocking the ball loose to prevent a double play" clearly implies two things:
1. The action by the runner had a purpose (preventing a double play), and
2. The action by the runner did, in fact, prevent the natural double play that would have resulted as the play unfolded (i.e. R1 took off as soon as the ball was hit into the air). If the ball were CAUGHT then the runner would NOT have been successful in "preventing the double play." So, it was *not* caught.

Yet, I think it is a very poor question because it leaves too many things unclear to the test taker. That is the essence of a bad question - lack of clarity.

A good question should neither be a test in testmanship nor require the test taker to parse words and discern their hidden meaning. It should only test the understanding of the pertinent point.

Secondly, it only seems that references to baseball rules bother YOU. The *fact* of the matter is that softball is a game that has evolved DIRECTLY from baseball. Many (actually *most*) of the rules of softball have come directly from baseball. Certainly, over the years, different softball organizations have morphed their system of rules into a more proprietary structure but, nonetheless, the essence of the rules have been derived from baseball.

So, it's only natural (although perhaps not particularly helpful) to wonder if a seemingly inappropriate ruling would be administered in a similar fashion under another system of rules - baseball being one of them. Already, in this thread, there were comparisons with how this situation would be ruled under ISF. That reference didn't seem to bother you. If somebody wondered how this would be ruled under AFA, or NSA, or USSAA - would that cause anybody any "consternation?" It's a natural form of curiosity and sometimes such comparisons are VERY helpful in revealing an inadequately addressed rule.

I'll give you an example. My daughter's fastpitch team has played in several AFA tournaments in the past few years. We even went to some of their National Tournaments. Our team hadn't had much experience with AFA so I took it upon myself to familiarize myself with their system of rules. To their credit (AFA's), they make their rules readily available for all too see. ASA prefers to keep their system of rules under lock and key. I discovered that the AFA batting-out-of-order rule never clarified whether any additional outs gained on a hit by the improper batter were allowed to stand. I wrote an email to the AFA seeking clarification. Their answer was, "Oops!" Their intent was that such outs would *not* stand and they said that they would have to rewrite that section to make that clear. I wouldn't have even known to ask such a question without first being aware that OTHER system of rules sometimes DO allow you to keep additional outs, ASA being one of them.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[Edited by David Emerling on Feb 26th, 2006 at 04:45 PM]

OK, David. Which points of hidden meaning, exactly, would have changed the ruling on this play? What is the pertinent point being tested, in your view, that is compromised by the "lack of clarity?" Remember, this was an ASA test - ASA rules only, please.

No matter how you flesh out this scenario, the ruling is the same. You may not like the ruling, or you may think it is unfair under some "fleshed out" scenarios, but the ruling itself is clear and unaffected.

Dead ball. BR out. R2 out. R1 scores.

If fact, as a test question, it is quite good, because it requires the test taker to consider various possibilities, due to the unstated details, but to always end up with the same ruling.

I made no comment regarding an opinion of the ruling, bad or good. Others have. My OPINION is simply that the "pertinent point" could have been tested in a less convoluted manner. It strikes me as one of those questions you could get RIGHT for the WRONG reason.

Let me ask you this: WHY is the BR out? Because the ball was caught? Because it was an Infield Fly? Or, because he interfered?

You might say, "What difference does it make?" That's a good point if you are only concerned about whether the test taker gets the answer correct. But, since EVERY answer has the BR out and the ball dead, there is no opportunity to ferret out any misconceptions on the part of the test taker.

It *is* possible to get things right for the wrong reason. Is that what we want when creating a test?

I think WHAT the question is attempting to test is excellent! I just think they could have tested the same point in a less convoluted manner. Just an opinion. You're free to have yours. It's not something worth arguing about.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[Edited by David Emerling on Feb 26th, 2006 at 10:40 PM]

No, baseball is not another set of rules, it's another game.

However, since you have proven your unwillingness to accept that over time, so I doubt it will ever sink in.

PLAY: Abel on 1B takes off on Baker's long drive to right center. Abel is on his way to 3B when F9 makes a diving catch. Abel, returning to 1B, misses 2B on his way back. As Abel slides into 1B, the relay throw gets away from F3. After tagging 1B, Abel runs to 2B and stands on the bag. The defense appeals Abel's miss of 2B on the return.

PLAY: Abel on 3B, Baker on 1B, one out. Charles gets a hit down the RF line. Abel scores. Baker misses 2B on his way to 3B, and Charles is thrown out at 2B for the second out. The defense appeals Baker's miss at 2B.

PLAY: Abel on 1B. Baker hits a hard fair line drive that hits Abel as Abel is still in contact with 1B. Abel could not avoid being hit.

Which game did these plays occur in, baseball or softball?

What is the point of an umpire test? Is it to...

1) Qualify / disqualify umpires based on rules knowledge, as, for example, a driver's test?

or is it to...

2) Renew the knowledge of umpires by causing them to consider which rule applies, search the book, think through the situation, and come to a decision?

The answer can vary with the local association, but I submit it is more #2 than #1.

If the purpose is considerably more than grading, then the question is excellent, because it raises just the questions you asked, and causes the umpire to look at the rules that pertain to how the answers go.

So, no I do not say, "What difference does it make?" in the casual, "the answer is the same" way that you imply. But I say, "Whatever way you flesh out the scenario, when you come to the rule(s) that apply, you will discover the call is the same, hence all alternatives have the same answer for this question." That implies the test taker had to do some thinking and considering... just what the test designers had in mind, I would guess.

From my perspective, the writer of this question deserves a "well done!"

That's a very vague question and is open to different intrepretaions.
My call is, " Infield Fly, Out If Fair!" The base runners can advance, but at their own risk. The runner who has crossed home better get basck to third before the appeal. If the runner runs into the fielder after my call, then I could have malicious contact, expecially if the fielder is in foul territory

What if F3 caught the ball while standing in the running lane - which is <i>foul</i> territory. In this case you would "expecially" be more inclined to rule malicious contact?

Since the circumstances of the question strongly suggest that an infield fly situation is involved (yet no mention of it), it calls into question whether F3 is considerably in foul territory.

Can R1 score on a ball that is NOT caught in foul territory, despite interference by the BR?

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

As long as it is a fly ball, it is a live ball.

If the runner interferes and prevents the ball from being caught, the ball is dead immediately upon the interference. Where the ball then lands is moot. A dead ball cannot become foul.

Then along those lines, can a groundball, in foul territory, still rolling, be only a DEAD ball (neither fair nor foul), should the BR interfere with F3's attempt to make a play on the ball? Is there a special provision for FLY BALLS?

Just curious.

Play: Same situatiion, bases loaded. R1 (on 3rd) breaks for the plate on a suicide squeeze. Batter squares to bunt and sends the ball rolling up the first baseline, but clearly in foul territory. As F3 comes in to field the ball (perhaps to KEEP it foul), BR crashes into the fielder preventing F3 from fielding the ball. R1 crosses the plate prior to the interference.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

<b>then I could have malicious contact</b>

Remember, this is ASA, which unlike Fed (OR OBR!!) does not recognize malicious contact as such. However, ASA does recognize both USC and a deliberate attempt to break up a double play.

A couple of years ago, there was an ASA test question in which Abel is on 3B with one out and Baker hits a long fly to left. Baker, thinking the ball will be caught, throws his bat in anger. However, the ball goes over the fence. The ruling is that Baker is out for USC and Abel stays at 3B. However, I don't believe the test question stated whether Abel had or had not crossed the plate before the USC. If he had crossed the plate, I guess that run would score, too.

When does a batted ball in or over foul territory between home and 1st become foul?

I don't know if I would call it "special provision"... more like definitional.

A fly ball is NEVER a foul ball until it exits the ball park.

If a fly ball is first touched over foul territory, and is uncaught, then it is foul, but uncaught means it has hit the ground or other obstacle (e.g. fence). So long as it is in the air being juggled, etc., by the defender it is not YET uncaught and not YET a foul ball.

Leaving aside IFR for the moment...

In the scenario described, either the ball was caught or it wasn't.

If it was caught, BR out, dead ball at the point of interference, R2 out for BR's interference with intent to prevent a DP, and R1 scores, subject to being ruled out on appeal (not part of the question).

If it was not yet caught, dead ball a the point of interference, BR and R2 out on the interference ruling, R1 scores with no appeal possible (and, again, the possible appeal is not part of the question).

In the scenario presented in the question, there is no possiblity of a foul ball.

So if a fly ball is nearing the dugout (ie 15 feet away from the plane of the baseline, over foul ground) when all this action happens, you're scoring the run?

What is the BR doing "15 feet away from the plane of the baseline"?

I believe what he is doing is tackling F3 so that he cannot make the catch. Isn't that what we're talking about?

I'll spell it out again, since there have been several side-what-ifs, this one included.

Bases loaded, no outs. R1 is sprinting home and crosses the plate while the ball is sky high. R2 is rounding third. F3 is camped under the ball, near the dugout. BR, seeing that there will be an easy double or even triple play if the ball is caught, tackles F3.

Ruling (by rule): R1 scores, R2 out, BR out.

So, simply because the wordsmiths around here refuse to acknowledge that the ball is in fact foul (yes, I know, it's not yet technically foul - it's nothing while still in the air and in the ballpark), R1 is allowed to score?

First, while I did engage some of the what ifs earlier in this thread, my recent postings in this thread have to do with the scenario as presented in the question. Your scenario is not a possibility within what we are told in the question.

Second, it is most definitely NOT a wordsmithing issue about the fair status of the ball. It is a sequence of events issue. If the ball goes dead BEFORE the batted ball can become foul, what happens to it after that is moot. It is neither fair nor foul - it is dead because of interference. But, up until it became dead due to interference, it was a live ball and runners could advance subject to yadda yadda. Since the dead ball happened AFTER R1 crosed home and BEFORE the ball may or may not have become foul, then R1 is not required to return due to a foul ball.

Now, in your scenario, if you wanted to apply the flagrant misconduct case play, I would have no objection.

Apparently trying to get an interference call so that they could win the game. :-)

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

All these preposterous plays in which a run scores on a pop that would have been foul except for interference or in which a batter deliberately interferes with a fielder and thus wins the game could not happen if ASA had made a sensible rule.

It seems like a perfect case for 10-1-L, except that the test specifically says score the run.

Incidentally, what would Fed softball rule on Question #39?

It is interesting to me that even if the play in Question #39 had started with 1 out, the run would still count. When BR was called out for interference, the force was removed on R2. So the third out is a time play and the run would score.

ASA does not recognize "flagrant misconduct," except as USC, but even if the umpire invokes USC, the result is the same.

Would have been caught, maybe. How do you get to "would have been foul except for interference"There is an ASA case play (10-1 or 10-2, if memory serves ... I don't have my case book with me today) that disallowed a run that had scored on a home run ball due to flagrant misconduct on the part of the batter-runner... but, I'm relying on memory also for the exact nature of the play. But, that is what I was referring to in my answer to mcrowder.

I'm sure Mike R has checked out from this discussion long ago, but I'm interested in his comments on the following.

I was intentionally stretching the scenario to illustrate a point. And please stick with me here... I'm not trying to be a troll that refuses to listen to reason or read my rulebook! (If I was, I'd go post on the baseball board!)

Now, take my scenario, and have the ball in the air over foul ground, but F3 camped under it is now in the running lane... and also change it so that BR's interference is not malicious or flagrant... (which is, as Dakota mentions, the only rule that supports disallowing the run ... ps - thanks Dakota for being the fish on that bait, I needed someone to say that! :) )

So... a ball that WOULD HAVE BEEN foul (however you wish to describe it) had it been either caught or allowed to land can score a run if and only if interference is ruled on the batter and the runner has crossed the plate before interference occurred.

Therefore ... if there's no interference and the ball is caught, R1 is a dead duck and doesn't score. If there's no interference and the ball lands and stays foul, R1 goes back to third. ... But if the OFFENSE commits an illegal act as described above, the OFFENSE benefits. (Note that this is why my early questions about "Was the ball caught before the INT" and "Was the ball fair or foul" were important... at least to me.)

This is so wrong.

(PS - The initial question implies, but doesn't confirm, a catch. A ball being bobbled can also be "knocked loose" as posted in the initial question)

PPS - So sorry it took so long for me to get to my point!

<b>There is an ASA case play (10-1 or 10-2, if memory serves ... I don't have my case book with me today) that disallowed a run that had scored on a home run ball due to flagrant misconduct on the part of the batter-runner... but, I'm relying on memory also for the exact nature of the play.</b>

See my earlier post, on page 3. As I remember, at the time this test question appeared (I didn't know it was in the case book, too), it was because it was new in ASA to have a batter or runner called out purely for USC. We then considered various derivations, such as what if the ball goes over the fence, the BR touches 1B after the runner scores, but then the BR slugs F3? The answer was run scores, BR out and ejected.

Same thing at home plate: with the ball rolling around in the outfield, the runner deliberately gouges F2's eye before crossing the plate. Out for USC, ejected, no run. But if he crosses the plate and then commits the USC, the run scores.

Some posters felt that if a runner could be out for no other reason than USC, a runner might also be called safe for no other reason that USC on the part of a fielder. However, barring OBS, that case doesn't apply.

We have at least 2 topics going in this thread... one being the quality (if you will) of the test question, which, as I said, I think is a marvelous test question. Just the right about of information lacking to require the umpire taking the test to actually think about it and consult the rule book.

The other is the "fairness" of the ASA ruling in the various expanded scenarios. You have a point. But, the rulebook at this point is what it is on this play.

I know, but I can't just let this go... maybe I'm OCD or something... if it was caught, it would not be foul.

Let's pick this nit then.

If it was caught, over foul territory, it WOULD be foul. By definition, a ball that is first touched over foul territory is a foul ball. It is not, however, a DEAD ball, obviously. We would not holler "FOUL BALL!" (implying to the players that the ball is dead) on a caught foul fly, but that doesn't make it not foul.

I agree that a ball in flight has no foul-fair designation (until it leaves the park), but once it's touched, it is either fair or foul by definition.

I'll have to dig, but one of the caseplays mentions (or mentionED) a caught foul fly ball.

Isn't a ball <b>CAUGHT</b> in foul territory nothing more than a "caught ball?" Once a ball is caught, in flight, it is of no circumstance as whether it was first touched in fair or foul territory, provided it is <b>CAUGHT</b>.

Now, baseball has some special interpretations regarding fielders who are interfered with while attempting to field a ball over foul territory. I don't know (or, am not aware) of any special interpretations in any code of softball in this regard ... not that one may not exist. But if one *did* exist, some of the shock expressed regarding the seemingly unfairness of the play in this thread would not exist.

The problem with any set of rules is that it is nearly impossible to construct them in such a way that a flaw doesn't emerge that requires the rule to be modified, or, an official interpretation has to be made to cover an unanticipated occurrence.

It seems the baseball community and the softball community simply have different approaches to these "unanticipated occurrences." Baseball just rectifies it by adding to their already lengthy list of "unwritten rules" that are codified in places other than the official rulebook. Yet, these are dubbed "official interpretations" and are as enforceable as the rules that appear in the official rulebook.

Softball tends to simply allow the chips to fall where they may. The rules are what they are. If a circumstance comes up that a specific rule covers, but not in a very logical way ... too bad. The rule is the rule.

Baseball approach, "Damn! We have to <b>fix</b> that!"

Softball approach, "The rules are the rules. Oh well."

I find both approaches perfectly acceptable. The baseball approach requires the umpire to keep up with the latest developments and to have access to manuals far beyond what's available in the rulebook. That's a pain in the as$. Yet, there are very few situations that can be contrived in baseball that result in a consensus of unfairness in the ruling. Baseball is very quick to rid themselves of unfair situations, even if they have to create a book of official interpretations that is thicker than the original rulebook.

The softball approach simply requires the umpire to firmly understand the rules as they are written - warts and all. The umpire can rule by the letter of the law, and if the participants don't like it, they can take it up with the sanctioning body. The umpire is just the messenger. Don't shoot the messenger!

I can live with that.

Although, the softball approach would tend to put the umpire in more uncomfortable situations. The play in this thread being such an example.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[Edited by David Emerling on Feb 27th, 2006 at 06:54 PM]

Picking away at those nits...

When in doubt, RTFM. Or, better yet, read the rule book.

Please read- or re-read- the definition of a foul ball under rule #1 in the ASA rule book.

The definition DOES NOT read, "First hits the ground or is touched over foul territory...".

It reads, "First hits the ground or is touched (NOT CAUGHT) over foul territory...".

A fly ball that IS CAUGHT over foul territory is not a foul ball- by definition.

Funny - I read the same statement and get opposite meaning. There is a difference between a touch and a catch, obviously. You can have a touch, without a catch. But you cannot have a catch without a touch. Rules regarding when a baserunner is released from a bag refer to first touch... but this doesn't mean that a ball caught without a bobble was never touched. A catch INCLUDES a touch. It BEGINS with a touch.

The statement you've quoted includes the words "(not caught)" in order to tell us that what matters regarding foul/fair is when the ball is TOUCHED, not when it is CAUGHT. It does NOT mean that the ball is not foul if it was caught. It was foul when it was first touched. If the rule meant to say what you think it says, it would not say "(not caught)", it would say "(uncaught)". The only reason for the "(not caught)" part is so the rules are clear in a case where a player first TOUCHES the ball in foul (or fair) ground, but completes the catch in fair (or foul) ground - what matters regarding fair/foul is where it was when TOUCHED, not CAUGHT.

You make a highly technical, and upon further review, probably a CORRECT analysis.

This is probably why, when an umpire goes out on a fly ball that is going to be very close to the line, once caught, the umpire FIRST signals whether the ball was on the FAIR or FOUL side of the line and THEN signals "a catch." This is done to get the umpire locked into making a determination of the fair/foul status of the ball because, if it's ultimately NOT CAUGHT, that determination will be critical. If he focuses too intently on the catch/no-catch status of the ball (which is usually an easier call than the fair/foul call), he will find himself in a mess should the ball NOT be caught.

In other words, if the ball is ultimately caught, whether it was on the fair or foul side of the line is rendered moot. But if the ball is dropped, that becomes the most critical element of the call.

Interesting.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

All foul balls are dead balls. True.

A fly ball caught over foul territory remains a live ball. True.

Therefore, a fly ball caught over foul territory cannot be a foul ball.

We might call it a "foul ball" in a generic, conversational manner, much the same way that someone calls a batted ball that is tipped back to the screen a "foul tip". But neither is technically correct. From a strictly by-the-book, rules-based definition (which I thought was the whole point behind picking those nasty nits!) a caught fly ball can never be a "foul ball".

All foul balls are NOT dead balls. There's the logic hole here, not the conclusion.

An uncaught foul ball is dead. A caught foul ball is live.

I think mccrowder's point may have been that any ball touched in foul territory is foul. If it ends up hitting the ground, it remains foul. If it ends up being caught, then it is a CATCH, albeit a split second after having been touched. It must be touched before caught.

Consider this:

<font color=red><i>Bases loaded, no outs. There's a looping fly hit down the right field line. The plate umpire moves up the line to rule on the play. The ball is going to land very near the foul line. F3, F4, and F9 converge on the ball. The ball hits F4's glove (in foul territory) and pops out of her glove and into the air as she collides with the other fielders.</i></font>

The umpire should signal the ball as having been touched in foul territory although the ball is not, technically, foul ... YET! It has been touched in foul territory.

This is valuable information to the runners and it is information they deserve to have immediately. It completely changes HOW the runners will react to the ensuing play. Had that ball been initially touched in FAIR territory (even though the status of a catch or no-catch is still in question), the runners may opt to get a certain distance off the base, start moving closer to the next base, in anticipation that the ball may drop and put them in jeopardy of being forced out at the next base.

The runners now KNOW that the ball was initially touched in FOUL territory. They can now stay ON the base because the only way the runners can advance is if the ball is ultimately caught. The runner doesn't have to worry about being forced out at the next base if the ball is NOT CAUGHT because it will be foul.

<font color=red><i>As F4 falls to the ground, the ball ends up in her glove before touching the ground.</i></font>

<b>Now</b> it's a catch!

But, for a moment, the status of the ball in foul territory was pertinent even though the ball was ultimately caught.

So, one can say that a CAUGHT fly ball is never foul and, technically, that is probably correct. But, the fact that a ball is caught over foul territory can be quite pertinent to how a play unfolds. The fact that the catch is taking place in either FAIR or FOUL territory is important. The players deserve that information and the umpire should provide it promptly.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[Edited by David Emerling on Feb 28th, 2006 at 01:10 PM]

I guess I'm having problems with this assumption that a caught ball is not foul. Why not. It doesn't say that in the rules. A caught ball can be caught fair, or caught foul. Why is there an assumption here by you two that once it's caught it's no longer foul? It IS foul... it's just not dead.

ASA
Rule 1 Foul Ball A
Rule 7.4.E/F
EFFECT: Section 4E-K The ball is dead and each runner must return to their base without liability to be put out.

By rule, it isn't possible to have a "live" foul ball.

Shall I emulate 2 posters on the baseball board and insist I'm right in the face of evidence to the contrary? Or shall I fall on my sword.

I stand (well... sit) corrected.

As an absolute contrarian by nature, even when I am taking a position contrary to myself...

Recall all my confident postings that none of the what ifs in this thread, no matter how constructed, but they had to fit within the original test question's wording, would result in a different ruling?

Well, what do we do with ASA 1-FOUL BALL-D???

http://www.clicksmilies.com/s0105/te...smiley-009.gif

I already thought about that.

Definition "D" refers to "a runner".

The player from the test question is a "batter-runner".

But, yeah, at first glance that one does muddy the waters a bit!