If the base coach is in their proper position, the likelihood of the ball becoming fair is quite remote.

Answer me this...When does a batted ball become fair/foul before passing a base and is still moving? I personally don't call anything until I know for certain the ball isn't going to cross into fair territory or a defensive player touches it. If it's a batted ball that touches the batter before leaving the batter's box, yes that's a foul ball, but what if they aren't in the BB?

Foul ball also.

If a ball in foul territory hits a runner, perhaps a runner leading off of third in foul territory, it is foul. If a ball in foul territory hits an on deck batter, it is foul. If a ball in foul territory hits a base coach, it is a foul ball. Why, or specifically, where in the rules do we have a ruling that says the same does not apply to the batter.

If it was NOT assumed to be intentional touching, it would be a foul ball. So by assuming that the BR intentionally contacted the ball AND it was assumed that the ball MIGHT have had the opportunity to become a fair ball, interference should be called? Without a rule to back it up?

When I am coaching I never touch the ball, I let the players do it. I don't want to be on the receiving end of a rule or interpretation that I get wrong or don't know. Sounds like a good idea now.

OK, I'm convinced. . .the rule, as written, does not allow for an interference call. So should this situation happen, I will call foul ball. . .followed by calling the batter out for USC removing him from the game.

Maybe it's just me, but that doesn't sound like you were convinced at all.

Now, tell me which rule you will cite in calling the batter out, not just ejected??

Now, tell me which rule you will cite in calling the batter out, not just ejected??

There is no rule, unless you somehow classify intentionally messing with a foul ball (that might become fair) in the same category as throwing a bat in anger.

If there isn't a rule against a batter, coach, runner, intentionally interfering with a batted ball that has a chance to become fair, there should be.

My point exactly. There is no rule allowing you to call the BR out. If you (celebur, et al) want to categorize this as USC, knock yourself out; but there is still no rule which allows you to call the BR out. The penalty for USC is ejection; there can be no added out without a live ball play and interference.

Leave out the blindingly obvious scenarios, and go back to the ordinary runner advancing, taking a lead off 3rd, running to 1B, etc. Forget about the instinctive reaction by some of you that "somebody's gotta pay..."

Is adding the "intentionally interfering with a ground ball in foul territory that, ITUJ, has a chance to go fair" a good thing or a bad thing from the umpire's perspective?

Doesn't any batted ball have "a chance" to go fair until it stops or makes contact with something foreign to the ground? Aren't we taught to wait until it actually IS foul before calling it FOUL? Why are we taught that?

What if it is to the offense's disadvantage for the ball to stay foul? What then?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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