INT Interp

[tcannizzo]

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?

[OklahomaBlue]

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

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by tcannizzo

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

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.

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by OklahomaBlue

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

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!)

[HawkeyeCubP]

Originally Posted by Dakota

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.

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.

[Dakota]

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

[blu_bawls]

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.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by blu_bawls

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?

[bigsig]

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?

[MNBlue]

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.

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by MNBlue

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.

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.

[Mountaineer]

Originally Posted by mcrowder

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.

[MNBlue]

Originally Posted by mcrowder

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.

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.

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by Mountaineer

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 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.

[Mountaineer]

Originally Posted by mcrowder

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.