Retroactive Interference?
 

OK, we are not supposed to wait for the end of the play to call interference. But what do you call for the following?

Bunt down 3B line, just in foul territory. F5 comes to the ball and is bumped by R1 going home. Now what? Do you have any reason to kill the play? If you do, then you have a foul ball and you cannot call interference on a foul ground ball.

What if you let the play continue and the ball rolls into fair territory and dies. Now you have a fair ball. 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.

What is your (ASA, NFHS, NCAA) call?

WMB

Speaking ASA

HTBT. If the fielder was actually prevented from fielding the ball in foul territory, it's a foul ball. If it was intentional, it's a foul ball and I'll probably need another player to return to 3B.

If the fielder was not making any effort to field the ball at the time of the "bump", it's nothing.

As stated, HTBT

Why is it foul? Did you call Dead Ball while the ball was still in foul territory? If yes, what rule; what is your interpretation? If no, then the ball eventually rolled fair and settled (between home and 3B). Why isn't this a fair ball?

The word "bump" is meant to convey contact which is neither malicious (flagrant) nor intentional. The result is the contact was to knock F5 off balance such that she was not able to touch the ball before it rolled fair.

Is "fielding" the ball in foul territority "a play?" The fielder is obviously not trying to get an out; she is trapping to ball foul because she cannot get the out. By doing so, the defense gains a strike on the batter, and another opportunity to get an out. (And in my situation, to prevent a run from scoring.)

So - the question: "If a runner hinders or prevents a defender from fielding a ball in foul territory, is that interference?"

If yes - what rule?

If no, and the ball rolls fair, then the defense is disavantaged by the action of the runner which allowed a base hit, and a run to score. How do you fix that? Or is it just part of the game - play on!

WMB

It's dead because we had interference. Interference is a dead ball.

Uh... go read the interference rule - this sitch is specifically stated. It is interference when a fielder is interfered while fielding a ball. The penalty if the ball is foul is simply a foul ball. By rule.

Because it was dead while in foul territory - everything after that never happened.

Yes, by rule.

ASA Rule 1 - The Definitions.
FOUL BALL. 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.

This is definiltey a play. Fielders practice touching the ball the moment it is in foul territory. The runner impeded the fielder from making a play on a batted ball.

My call is DEAD BALL BATTER OUT on INT in foul territory, all runners return to base at time of pitch, AND a strike on the batter.

How can you call a player out for interfering with a ball with which the defense cannot put out anyone?

Tony, what would you do if F5 threw her glove and hit the ball to keep it foul?

:eek: ....................

Uh . . . I did. ASA 8-7.J " When the runner interferes: (1) with a fielder attempting to field a batted FAIR BALL.


WMB

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.

Good point - my bad ... it's the FOUL BALL definition where this is found.

2006 ASA Rule Book Change
 

Far be it from me to correct anyone (this isn't a correction, really), but the 2006 rule book (ASA 8-7.J(1)) clarifies this one:

"(1) With a fielder attempting to field a batter fair ball or a foul fly ball" (emphasis mine)

There was a subtle wording change in 8-7.J that made neither the summary of rules changes and is not highlighted in the book I have (grrrr). I could summarize it best by saying that the 2005 J(1) and J(2) rules were combined in J(1), and all the following 2005 numbered paragraphs got decremented by one. The old J(2) made reference to a fly ball over foul territory.

The sitch implies bunted ball was rolling on the ground at the time of the bump. I got FOUL BALL, no INT (from the safety of my home office with two rule books in my hand).

Why foul? It rolled fair, untouched, inside 3B, and settled. That is a fair ball!

The only way for it to be foul is for you to kill the play while the ball is still rolling in foul territory. And if you don't have interference, what reason do you have for calling dead ball?

And if you don't kill the play, and it is a fair ball, then the offense is rewarded for bumping the defender. And that should not be right!

So what are you going to do?

WMB

I don't understand all the consternation here. Speaking ASA, this is, by rule, a foul ball. ASA 1-FOUL BALL-D.

The ball is dead because it is a foul ball.

It is a foul ball by rule.

Because it became a foul ball the moment the runner interefered "with the fielder attempting to field a batted ball." No contact is necessary with the ball at the instant of the runner's interfering. It is, at that instant, simply a foul ball. What the ball does on the ground after a foul ball is ruled is immaterial.

Definitions: FED 2.25.1e (at least in my 2004 book;) FOUL BALL, FOUL TIP - A foul ball is a batted ball that: while over foul territory, a runner interferes with a defensive player attempting to field a batted ball.

Doesn't say anything about having to be a fair batted ball, so I guess its a foul ball as soon as the interference occurs, and you just call the foul ball. Since there doesn't seem to be any penalty for a runner interfering with a batted ground ball ON foul territory - as opposed to a fly ball OVER foul territory, I guess you have to rule it like any other foul ball. Also, batter would be out if this was BUNT foul on third strike, right?

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.

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.

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.

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

We have multiple "Tom"s in this thread! ;)

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.
<O:p
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.
<O:p
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.
<O:p
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.
<O:p
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.
<O:p
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?
<O:p
If yes, then call interference and call the runner out and call a strike on the batter.
<O:p
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.
<O:p
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?
<O:p
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?


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

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.

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)

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

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.