Batter prevents ball from rolling fair

[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.