Retroactive Interference?

[mcrowder]

WMB - it's been posted to twice and directed to once. Why is this hard?

"A foul ball is a batted ball that: D. While over foul territory, a runner interferes with a defensive player attempting to field a batted ball."

So the instant the runner interfered with the defensive player attempting to field a batted ball that was over foul territory, you have a foul ball. A foul ball is a dead ball. Everything that happens after that (including the ball rolling fair) didn't happen.

[tcannizzo]

Originally Posted by mcrowder

let's forget that you can't call this batter out....

How can you have the batter out AND call a strike on the batter ... which batter, the next one?

Of course, this is merely a foul ball, even if intent is ruled.

Typo on my original post. I meant that I would call the runner closest to home out and a strike on the batter.


Reason being is that by rule this was a foul ball, and therefore you cannot award the batter first base as would normally be done on runner INT.

[mcrowder]

Tom, I believe you are confusing the issue and awarding bases in completely unwarranted circumstances...

Your definition of foul is incomplete - one of the things that can make a ball foul (see D) is a runner interfering with a fielder trying to field a ball while it's over foul territory. Therefore, in the OP, we have a foul ball.

In the definition of interference, there is no penalty listed for interference while a grounded ball is foul. For there to be an out for interference, there must be a play to be interfered with. In the OP, we do not have an out. We simply have a foul ball. Nothing more, nothing less.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by mcrowder

Tom, ...

Hey, you talkin' to me? You talkin' to ME?

We have multiple "Tom"s in this thread!

[WestMichBlue]

Originally Posted by mcrowder

WMB - it's been posted to twice and directed to once. Why is this hard?

Good question. I believe that it is hard because nobody that has responded so far has been able to look past one single sentence in a rulebook of thousands of words. No one seems to be able to conceptually look at the big picture and come up with an interpretation to satisfy conflicting rules and statements.

No. 1 – we have a batted ground ball rolling outside the 3B foul line. Without it touching anything, or being touched by anyone, it rolls and comes to rest in fair territory before 3B. By definition, that is a fair ball.

No. 2 – no you say, it is a foul ball because one of the definitions of a foul ball is interference on a defender attempting to field a batted ball over foul territory.

No. 3 – if you call interference, then the penalty for interference is someone is going to be called out. (ASA 8-7 J-P). In fact, if we have a fly ball over foul territory, two players are called out. However, 8-7.J.1 specifically states that an out is called when a defender is attempting to field a batted FAIR ball. So we have no rule to call an out. In fact, we don’t have a rule to call interference.

No. 4 – let’s check the definition of interference. Yes, it does say that INT if hindering a defensive player attempting to execute a play. Most of you, in the past, have defined a play as an attempt to get an OUT. So what kind of an out are we going to get when the ball is on the ground in foul territory.

No. 5 – for you to claim interference, you have to believe that attempting to field a ball in foul territory is making a play. You have to believe that it is a legitimate play for a defender to touch a ball in foul territory to kill the play, because the defender does not have an opportunity to get an out on the B-R or any other runners. If the defender thought otherwise, then she would let the ball roll fair for an opportunity to get an out.

Which brings me back to my original question. Is attempting to trap a ball foul to prevent runners from advancing a legitimate attempt to make a play?

If yes, then call interference and call the runner out and call a strike on the batter.

If no, then you can’t call interference; you don’t have a foul ball; and you have an unhappy defense when the ball rolls fair.

When you get through working this out, see if your answer would be the same if the batter bunted down the 1B line and interfered with the pitcher attempting to field (?) touch (?) the ball which is still in foul territory?

WMB

[justmom]

Originally Posted by WestMichBlue

And F5 is complaining that she was prevented from touching the ball while it was still in foul territory, knowing that she had no play on the B-R.
WMB

If you called the foul ball as soon as the "interference" happened, like it says in the definition of a foul ball, then F5 couldn't complain. Because "knowing that she had no play on the B-R", the "play" she would have been attempting was trapping the ball in foul territory in order to get the foul ball call. So, she would have gotten the call, just not an extra out for the interference by the runner.

On the question of a runner interfering with a fly ball over foul territory: I keep wanting to think that a runner could interfere with the fielder (or intentionally touch the ball) and prevent the fielder from making a catch and an out. If the fielder dropped the ball because of the interference, it would just be a foul ball, and the runner could go back, and the batter would not be out because there would be no catch. So, you have to do something for a penalty in that situtation. On a ground ball, the runner interfering would most likely only cause the ball to continue to roll and go fair which is what the defense does not want. So on an attempt to catch a fly ball, the defense is attempting to get an out. On an attempt to trap a ball foul, the defense is attempting to get a foul ball call. So the rules in both situations seem to ultimately give the defense what it wants. I don't know if that is why the rules are written as such or not, but at least it is a plausible theory?

So what kind of an out are we going to get when the ball is on the ground in foul territory

You said this was a bunted ball; so batter would be out if it is 3rd strike. (Anyway, at least I have an answer)

[Dakota]

WMB, my friend, you are making this way too complicated.

On the situation you presented, you don't call interference any more than you call OUT on a batted ball that goes directly to the catcher's equipment and is caught by another fielder - even though for any other batted ball rebounding off of any other fielder's equipment to be caught by another fielder would be a catch. We don't call this a catch and an out because by definition, it is a foul ball.

We do not have to sweat the definition of a play here because the rule gives the exact scenario... a fielder is attempting to field a batted ball while the batted ball is over foul territory and is interfered with by a runner.

The rule tells us what the fielder is doing. It tells us what the runner did. It defines the result. FOUL BALL.

[IRISHMAFIA]

I'm with Tom on this. Trying to initiate a discussion worked. Now it seems you're trying to shove it down our throat because you are not getting the exact answer you want. I think it has been addressed perfectly by some.

It is simple. Speaking ASA.

The ball is dead the moment the runner contacts the fielder attempting to field the ball (Rule 1-Interference).

The ball is foul based on it's location at the time of the INT. (Rule 1 - Foul Ball.D)

I am NOT ruling the runner out because it was not a fair ball and the defense did not have the opportunity at that time to make an out. (Rule 8.7.J)

If the bunt was on two strikes, the BR is out (Rule 7.6.G). If less than 2 strikes at the TOP, it is a strike on the batter (Rule 7.4.E)

[Mountaineer]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Hey, you talkin' to me? You talkin' to ME?

We have multiple "Tom"s in this thread!

See, this is where we get in trouble naming names - OMG! That was the OTHER thread . . .

[mcrowder]

WMB - I don't have to "work it out" - it's worked out for me in the rulebook.

It is a foul ball the moment the runner interferes with a fielder trying to make a play on it. (Note that the rule doesn't say "Commits Interference" which is what you are trying to tie this to). Someone can interfere with play and have it not be "Interference". This case is one of them. F2 firing to third on a steal and nailing the batter in the helmet is another - yes the play was interfered with but it is not "Interference".

I don't have to worry about your first part - the ball is already foul (and dead). A dead ball can go where ever it wants, and will not regain live status (or fair status).

The definition of Interference does not include this play (a foul grounded ball), thus there is no penalty. Foul ball. Very simple.