Batter prevents ball from rolling fair

[canump]

Originally Posted by SC Ump

I have check ASA and NFHS and could not find supporting rules in either, so I am changing my answer to foul ball. Thanks for the post and discussion.

As after my visit to the orthopedic... I stand corrected.

You all can call it a foul ball, me I'm calling the out. No offensive player is aloud to WILLINGLY take a play away from a defensive player, a play where the defense has a possible chance to get an out. It does not matter to me if the ball is foul, when you have a ball rolling towards fair territory with plenty of momentum an d in my judgement that ball is going to be fair with plenty of margin and the defensive player is there to pick it up and throw to a base for a possible OUT, I'm calling the interfeirence. If I judge that the ball would not cross the line then I will call the foul ball. If in my judgement the contact was accidental then I will be calling foul ball but when that batter runner does it on purpose to prevent in my mind the out, I'm calling it.
You can rip me apart all you want, i can take it but that's how I handled it when I had it in my game and that's how I will call it again.

[RonRef]

Originally Posted by canump

You all can call it a foul ball, me I'm calling the out. No offensive player is aloud to WILLINGLY take a play away from a defensive player, a play where the defense has a possible chance to get an out. It does not matter to me if the ball is foul, when you have a ball rolling towards fair territory with plenty of momentum an d in my judgement that ball is going to be fair with plenty of margin and the defensive player is there to pick it up and throw to a base for a possible OUT, I'm calling the interfeirence. If I judge that the ball would not cross the line then I will call the foul ball. If in my judgement the contact was accidental then I will be calling foul ball but when that batter runner does it on purpose to prevent in my mind the out, I'm calling it.
You can rip me apart all you want, i can take it but that's how I handled it when I had it in my game and that's how I will call it again.

I totally agree with you on this, I will also call the batter out. It is called doing what is right! Out for being dumb!

[Dakota]

What other rules do you guys ignore / make up because it is doing what is "right"?

[canump]

Originally Posted by Dakota

What other rules do you guys ignore / make up because it is doing what is "right"?

It's not thast I'm ignoring a rule, or am making up a rule. I'm calling this on the grounds of ( keep in mind that I don't have my rule book in front of me, but when I get home I will be looking myself for the correct wording and to make sure I'm not misreading because if I did misread it then I got a whole bunch of paper to eat). I'm making this ruling on the grounds that it's a legally batted ball that the defense has an opportunity to get an out on, if the ball roles fair. The BR deliberatly stopped the ball from rolling fair and that in my opinion is a deliberate act of interfeirence. That is what I'm making my call on.

[MNBlue]

Originally Posted by canump

It's not thast I'm ignoring a rule, or am making up a rule. I'm calling this on the grounds of ( keep in mind that I don't have my rule book in front of me, but when I get home I will be looking myself for the correct wording and to make sure I'm not misreading because if I did misread it then I got a whole bunch of paper to eat). I'm making this ruling on the grounds that it's a legally batted ball that the defense has an opportunity to get an out on, if the ball roles fair. The BR deliberatly stopped the ball from rolling fair and that in my opinion is a deliberate act of interfeirence. That is what I'm making my call on.

I don't think you can assume that the ball would enter fair territory. It may look like it might, and had the BR not touched it, the ball may have become a fair ball, but it didn't, and we can't assume that it would have. We only have what ACTUALLY happened to base our ruling on, not what MAY have happened. When the rulebooks give us the latitude to 'assume' what may have happened, they spell it out in the book. So either they missed this scenario, or they don't want us to guess.

With that said, I do think it should be interference, but until I am given the latitude to call it interfernence, I will be calling it a foul ball.

[Dakota]

I understand the sense of "justice" here, but my issue with the interference ruling is I can find no rule that defines contact with a batted ground ball over foul territory by a runner as anything other than a foul ball. Intent does not matter.

Contact with the runner makes the ball by definition foul.

[RonRef]

Originally Posted by Dakota

I understand the sense of "justice" here, but my issue with the interference ruling is I can find no rule that defines contact with a batted ground ball over foul territory by a runner as anything other than a foul ball. Intent does not matter.

Contact with the runner makes the ball by definition foul.

Your right the ball will be foul, and the batter runner will be out!

[Dakota]

You keep saying that, but provide no rule. "Being stupid" is not against the rules. And, if the correct ruling is foul ball, then it was not stupid at all, was it?

Case play?? Rule?? Authoritative ruling of any kind??

[John Robertson]

Wow! I created a monster with this post! Thanks for all your passionate and thoughtful replies. Personally I'm going to call it foul ball but hold my nose. (I also find it difficult to penalize someone for being clever--and the batter-runner in this fictitious case is one smart cookie!)

[greymule]

You all can call it a foul ball, me I'm calling the out.

Well, that should be the rule. But is it the rule?

It should be that no run can score on a play in which the batter hits a popup and then deliberately clotheslines F3 to prevent a double play. But the rule says otherwise. (This one goes to the top of my list of idiotic rules.)

It should be that an advantageous fourth out on a runner who did not score can nullify a run. But the rule says otherwise.

I'm sure people can think of many other should be's in ASA and other codes. But if there's a rule or case play that covers the situation specifically, you have to hold your nose and follow it. (And is everybody certain that a runner can legally pick up a ball that's two inches foul and clearly rolling fair?)

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by greymule

[B](And is everybody certain that a runner can legally pick up a ball that's two inches foul and clearly rolling fair?)

No, not certain, but I've not been able to find anything in either the ASA or the NFHS rule book / case book that makes it anything but a foul ball.

[celebur]

I assume that it is being ruled foul because it touched an offensive player while over foul territory. But just before that, it wasn't foul yet (it hadn't settled on foul territory, nor had it bounded past 1B over foul territory).

I can see validity in both sides of this point, but if I think the ball had a reasonable chance of rolling fair, and that the defense had a reasonable chance at an out, I feel compelled to rule interference.

Edit: But I also have to be reasonably confident that the act of the BR was intentional.