Batter prevents ball from rolling fair

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by bluezebra

Out for interference. And a 5-yard penalty for illegally kiicking a loose bal.

Bob

In what country do you "kiick a loose bal"? You must be talking about Miami Dolphin great, Jim Kiick

[RonRef]

Originally Posted by bluezebra

Out for interference. And a 5-yard penalty for illegally kiicking a loose bal.

Bob

Bluezebra, is the a basic spot, spot of the foul, or previous spot!

[RonRef]

Originally Posted by mcrowder

Ah, under the section in the rules labelled, "Willfully changing the ball's direction".

Doesn't the batter make every attempt, while at bat, to willfully change the ball's direction and prevent an out? We don't call them out for that when they succeed, do we?

As noted, in FED, it's INT. In ASA, this is perfectly legal. (Perhaps it SHOULDN'T be, and perhaps we WISH we could call an out here ... but we can't.)

There has to be some rule application that covers this in ASA? So I am running home from third and it looks like it (the ball) is going to go far and the batte runner is going to be thrown out at first for the third out, I should just kick the ball so it stays foul with no penalty? Do I have this right?

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by RonRef

There has to be some rule application that covers this in ASA? So I am running home from third and it looks like it (the ball) is going to go far and the batte runner is going to be thrown out at first for the third out, I should just kick the ball so it stays foul with no penalty? Do I have this right?

Unfortunately, yes. You have that right. In fact, the ASA rulebook specifically states that if a batter or runner interferes with a foul ball, it's a foul ball.

[SRW]

Originally Posted by RonRef

There has to be some rule application that covers this in ASA? So I am running home from third and it looks like it (the ball) is going to go far and the batte runner is going to be thrown out at first for the third out, I should just kick the ball so it stays foul with no penalty? Do I have this right?

Speaking ASA,
Why do you think that coaches teach their baserunner on 3B to lead off in FOUL territory? If they get hit there, it's a foul ball...

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by bigsig

I would call them out for interference. The way you described it, the batter's actions were to willfully change the balls direction and prevent an out.

Citations please.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by Steve M

I think we may have a difference in rules with this one. ASA doesn't have any violation on this - per Mike. Fed does cover this. I think it's Rule 7, Section 7, dunno what article covering when the batter is out - if the batter-runner intentionally contacts a ball in (fair or) foul territory - and the ball has a chance of going fair when touched in foul - that's interference, batter-runner is out, and other runners return to their base at time of pitch.

Steve, are you sure you aren't thinking about 7-4-11, hitting the bat a second time in foul territory? In NFHS, the batter is out if, ITUJ, it had a chance to go fair.

I can't find anything about the runner or BR being out after contact with a non-fly batted ball in foul territory.

Maybe I'm missing something...

[Dakota]

To all who would call the BR out because she "deserves it" ... we're umpires, not parents.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

Did you mean offense or defense?

I meant offense. Squeeze play, for example, or sac bunt. The offense wants the ball to go fair. Ball has a chance to go fair, but BR or R1 boots it. Do you guys (a generality - not anyone specific) want to call the BR / R1 out of interference?

[canump]

Originally Posted by Dakota

I meant offense. Squeeze play, for example, or sac bunt. The offense wants the ball to go fair. Ball has a chance to go fair, but BR or R1 boots it. Do you guys (a generality - not anyone specific) want to call the BR / R1 out of interference?

On this situation I'm saying no because there is no obvious attempt to direct the ball or keep the ball away from the defense. On my first post on page one of this subject I stated that I had this type of play. A play where the batter hit a legally batted ball that came down in foul territory a good 3' off the line but had so much spin on it that it immediately started to head for fair territory and would have crossed into fair with plenty of distance. The batter did not run immediately and only started to move when it was obvious that the ball was going to be fair, he took 3 steps and stopped right where the ball was coming towards the line and placed his foot between the ball and the line letting the ball roll into his foot. The pitcher was standing there waiting for the ball to roll fair so he could pick it up and throw to first as everyone had seen the bater get a late start. To the best of my knowledge it is still considered a legally batted ball, because its not foul till its touched, so I called the batter/runner out for the interfierence as in my judgement he took a play away from the defense.
I agree that under normal circumstance that this would normally be a foul ball, but with these factors in place I made my call. There was clear intent by that batter no doubt in my mind.

[Dakota]

Well, your call had "justice" on its side. And, it was probably easier to sell than calling the ball foul, and THEN ejecting the player and calling him out.

But, speaking ASA, it was a call not supported by the rules.

I gather by your response, you would like to have the "intent" judgment by the umpire added to the foul ball call?

[greymule]

The NCAA book deals with this situation, but somebody at headquarters better look up contacting:

9-9-b-2

"The batter may not, after contacting a foul ball, intentionally deflect the course of the ball in any manner while running to first."

In describing interference, the OBR book twice cites "intentionally deflects the course of the [foul] ball." I was wondering why neither NCAA nor OBR used simply touches, but I guess they're trying to cover blowing on the ball or digging a groove in the ground in front of the ball.

[canump]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Well, your call had "justice" on its side. And, it was probably easier to sell than calling the ball foul, and THEN ejecting the player and calling him out.

But, speaking ASA, it was a call not supported by the rules.

I gather by your response, you would like to have the "intent" judgment by the umpire added to the foul ball call?

On my call he was not ejected as I only called the interfierence and the out. The "EJECTION" word came on someone else post. To me calling the out is enough.
Yes maybe some wording should be added to cover such incident.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by Dakota

I meant offense. Squeeze play, for example, or sac bunt. The offense wants the ball to go fair. Ball has a chance to go fair, but BR or R1 boots it. Do you guys (a generality - not anyone specific) want to call the BR / R1 out of interference?

Sorry, I read "disadvantage" and thought "advantage".

[archangel]

Interesting thread...my kneejerk response when 1st reading this post was--Whoa, wait a minute, the BR cant kick the ball away, Out!...But thanks to the smart officials here, I now see the error of my ways, and would rule, Foul!
I guess sometimes we all want to do what we think is "correct" without thinking the logic through....