Retroactive Interference?

[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)