INT Interp
 

ASA Girls FP
R1 on 3B with 1 out.
B2 has 3-2 count and hits a pop up near the on deck circle.
F5 can catch this fly ball with ordinary effort. (Everyone in the park knows this).
R1 while off the base INT's with F5's play. (No question about the INT).
Ball lands ands settles in foul ground.

Ruling 1:
R1 is out for INT
B2 stays at bat with 3-2 count.

Ruling 2:
R1 is out for INT
B2 is out because the ball could be caught with ordinary effort.

Rule 8.7.L Exception would support Ruling 2
POE 33.A.d supports Ruling 1

How say ye?

IMHO you can't get more than one out on the play. R1 is out and a foul on the batter...

The EXCEPTION you cite is actually an exception to the NOTE Section J-L just above with states that the BR is awarded 1B. In your situation, the exception would be to:

ASA Rule 8-7-J-1 NOTE.

Since the interference was with a routine fly ball over foul territory that could be caught with ordinary effort, the runner is out AND the BR is out.

Why not, OK? You have a fly ball, and you have a runner off base - surely you could get 2 outs had this ball been caught. This runner interfered with a possible double play.

(Not to mention that it's supported by rule that this SHOULD be 2 outs!)

Confused now - are we going with the Rule 8.7.J-L Exception because of the inclusion of the word "routine" in the rule and in this situation?

I recall we went over the POE 33.d thing a month or two ago, because I had something similar to this happen.

Now it seems that this section of Rule 8 contradicts with POE 33.d. Or is it attempting to simply further specify? The way the book reads now, I could see a coach having an argument for either ruling in a protest, by using one section or the other.

The difference is the fly ball can be caught (in the umpire's judgment) with ordinary effort.

There would be almost no evidence that a "double play" could be possible. I call the runner out and keep the batter at 3-2.

Really? The runner is well off the base and close enough to the fielder to be tagged after the ball is caught.

Besides, if you do not rule the BR out, what do you do with the rule cited above? Ignore it?

I agree with Dakota here. R1 had to intentionally IF since the foul ball was near the on deck circle, obviously trying to preserve B2's at bat. There would have been one out when this rutine ball was cought and a possible double play with R1 that far off the base. Why give them the benefit of only one out?

I have 2 outs as well. R1 is out for the interference. Clear cut. BR is out because of the exception. The possibility of a double play is irrelevant.

If I can judge whether a fly ball is caught with ordinary effort for the purposes of an IF, I can certainly judge it for the purposes of enforcing this rule as well.

Well... the possibility of a double play is not irrelevant, because the possibility of the double play is the entire reason for the exception in the first place.

There's only one runner on base - the ball is foul - how could there be a double play? Even if you call both players out, I wouldn't classify that as a double play. I would have R1 out and batter back in the box.

I understand your point, but that was not what I was thinking.
As relating to interference by a retired runner to prevent a double play, where we can rule a second out, the possibility of a double play in the OP is not relevant, since the interference, in all liklihood was not committed intentionally to prevent a double play.
It was probably a running mistake, unless it was men's slow pitch, where it probably was an attempt to prevent a catch as opposed to preventing a double play.

I suppose you've never witnessed an out on a pop fly caught over foul territory. Amazing if you've never seen this. There could easily be a double play - caught fly, tag runner (who is near enough, considering they interfered!) or throw back third. Two outs.

I'm not stupid - I re-read the OP before I wrote that - it didn't say the runner was off on the pitch or anything so I'm guessing their position (as is everyone) because it just says they were off the bag. I am assuming they were watching the pop and wandered off the bag - if they could be doubled up from that position they shouldn't be playing softball - baseball maybe. LOL! So, no, I have NEVER seen a player stupid enough to get tagged on a pop foul ball by the 3rd base bag. I am sure in your vast experience you have - but not me.

"B2 has 3-2 count and hits a pop up near the on deck circle."

How far was the on deck circle from 3B?

"R1 while off the base INT's with F5's play."

How far off the base?

I have seen small fields where the on deck circle is only a few feet away from the field and larger fields with lots of room to the on deck circle. If F5 would have caught the ball, was R1 far enough off the base to definitely get doubled off?

The runner and the batter are both out.

ASA 8.7.L.Note.Exception
ASA 2006 Case Play 8.8-43

I didn't call you stupid. Maybe you should re-reread the OP, though. Unless the on-deck circle was drawn in the coach's box (in my "vast experience", I've never seen that, have you?), then the runner, when she interfered, was more than just a couple of steps off the bag. This could be 15-20 feet (probably the closest I've ever seen the ODC to 3rd base) or it could be 40 or 50 feet. In both cases, easy catch and throw DP... but even if it was drawn 2 steps from third base, if the runner is close enough to interfere with the catch, the runner is CERTAINLY within range of a tag if the ball is allowed to be caught - again, easy DP.

BTW - the DP talk is not really even necessary for making this call, since 2 outs is SPECIFICALLY pointed out in this EXACT situation in the rulebook. But the possible DP does explain the reasoning for the rule, and keeps it consistent with other interference situations where a runner has broken up a potential DP.

Doesn't really matter, since this is BY RULE a 2-out interference call. But if R1 was close enough to F5 to interfere with a catch, she was certainly closer to F5 than third base - and certainly an easy DP by tag, if not throw to 3B.

The OP said the pop fly was over near the on-deck circle. Now, with some field layouts, that could be anywhere from where the coach's box should be to just off the batter's box... but assuming somewhat of a reasonable field layout, this would be away from the baseline and well away from 3B, well into foul territory. The OP also said R1 interferedwith F5, who was otherwise able to make the catch with ordinary effort. I admit I assumed physical interference, which would place R1 well away from the base and right next to the fielder. Hence, a relatively easy DP after the catch.

Why do most of you assume R1 was close to where the catch would occur? F5 started in fair ground and had to cross the base line to get to the ball and so the R1 could be way beyond tagging distance from F5 at the ball, if F5 got there. The OP reads to me like R1 was in the way of F5 headed for the ball, nothing implied about R1 being near the ball.

Of course, none of that matters to the 2-out interpretation of the rule, which is what the OP asked and probably why the geography was not specified in the OP.
With 2 outs by rule, the rest of the parameters don't matter, except to understand the reasoning of the rule, as mcrowder said.

I admit it is an assumption, but it is because of how the OP stated the situation. For "everyone in the park" to know that this was a can of corn catch led me to assume F5 was camped under the pop up and then was interfered with.

But, as has been said several times, it makes no difference. This situation is specific in the rules. 2 outs.

No you didn't call me stupid - but it was insinuated by a smarta$$ comment (IMO). I understand the rule calls for both to be called out. (I'm curious about other rulesets though and I'm too lazy to look.)

My point about the runner being close enough to be tagged out was that if the pop is near the on-deck circle and that's a routine play there's no way the runner is going to be off the bag far enough to be thrown/tagged out. They would only be off that far if they are stupid (like me) or showing off (which would also be stupid).

OK, I did check in the NCAA rule book and in that ruleset, the runner is declared out and it's a foul ball on the batter. (9.13.5 for those scoring at home)

I know (or assume) that the question was for ASA but since I do NF and NCAA I was just curious to see if my call was correct in my rulesets.

Don't get hung up on the location of the on-deck circle in the original post, it is really irrelevant since the fly ball was catchable with ordinary effort by F5.

We had a treat here yesterday in Johnson City, TN at ASA 14A Nationals. Henry Pollard and Dan Blair visited us in the umpire's room for a while. This was the perfect opportunity to get it straight from the horse's mouth.

According to Henry: Bottom line in this case, the rules were changed and they missed cleaning it out of the POE. The main body of the Rules are not superceded by the POE's and not by the Case Book. These are to clarify, but if there is a contradiction between the Rules and the POE or the Rules and the Case Book, YOU GO BY THE RULES!

So now we have our answer. R1 is OUT for INT, and B2 is OUT also.

Let me hijack this one a little bit and get some answers to something that came up on another discussion board last week (ASA rules).

Take the exact same secenario presented in the first post, but make this change: instead of R1 interfering with with F5, let's suppose that F5 was interfered with by the third base coach.

The "Exception" noted above (from rule 8-7-L) applies to cases where a runner commits the act of interference.

Would this same "Exception" apply when a base coach is the guilty party?

For my altered version of this play, would the ruling be:

a) Runner closest to home (R1) called "out" and the batter called "out".

b) Runner closest to home (R1) called "out" and batter still at bat, charged with a foul ball?

If (b), what if the pop-up was a fair ball? Would the batter be awarded first base.

The rule on coaches interference says that the runner closest to home is out on this play. My instict would be to call the batter out also.

But the "Exception" noted above reads as an exception to several rules that cover interference by a runner. The rule about interference by a coach is not specifically covered by this exception.

Especially since the OP said ;)

If a base runner takes a catch away by interference I'm not giving the bat back to the batter that would have been out with ordinary effort. Isn't that what the exception is there for? I agree with you this is clear cut and we have two outs. ...Al

Wasn't that superseded by the recent change about fly balls in foul ground?

Could be, CecilOne...but for the life of me, I'm not sure which recent change you are referring to!:confused:

Blown call??
 

Coach here.

This happened this week at PONY nationals, 16U.

Similar sitch, but this time ball is fair. No outs R1 on first, stealing with the pitch Infield pop in base line about 10 feet from second on right hand side. R1 runs into F4 and prevents catch. BU calls R1 out for interference and puts BR on first. I ask why wasn't defense awared 2 outs since it was going to be an easy 2 with R1 so far from first. BU says in his opinion there was no intentional interrference on the part of R1 so he only granted one out.

Prior to this thread, I did not know about Rule 8.7.L exception If the interference prevents the fielder from catching a routine fly ball (fair or foul) with oridnary effort, the batter is also out.

The rule seems crystal clear, there should have been 2 outs, was the BU just blowing smoke regarding intentional interference?

Rule 8.7.L Exception is ASA. It is also NCAA. Not sure of Pony or others...
Just look at all the confusion on this message board. Tough call in real time, coach.

Tony, you are correct with the different rule sets. Before posting I forgot to check the PONY rule book

I could not find a fly ball exception, but here is the text of the PONY rule.

Rule 9 sec 8.j When the baserunner interferes with a fielder attempting to field a batted ball or intentionally interferes with a thrown ball. If this interference, in the judgement of the umpire, is an obvious attempt to prevent a double play and occurs before the baserunner is put out, the immediate succeeding runner shall also be called out.

I agree with BU that the runner did not intentionally interfere, therefore, according to the above rule, I only get one out on the play.