Batter prevents ball from rolling fair
 

I've never had to rule on this play, but I'd like everyone's thoughts anyway:

Nobody on base. Lefthanded hitter up. He swings and barely makes contact. The ball is rolling in foul territory about a foot from the baseline and about 20 feet from home plate. The batter figures it's going to be foul and doesn't bother to run. The first baseman moves in to see if the ball will roll fair. The ball hits a rock or a rut and starts to suddenly veer towards the baseline. The batter realizes he's in trouble and will be an easy out, so he runs toward first base and deliberately kicks the ball in foul territory just before it was going to reach the baseline and become a fair ball.

What would you call? Foul ball? Batter out for interference? Your opinions, please.

I would call out for interference.

This seems way to easy, call the batter out for being stupid and violating the rules.

I did have this in an Ontario Rural Battam Boys (14 year olds ) and I called the batter out. The ball was spinning back towards the line and in my opinion would have crossed with room to spare. The batter did stand there and after being yelled at by both of his coaches to run took 3 steps and stopped and let the ball roll into him about an inch outside the fair line with the pichter standing waiting to pick up the ball. Of course I got accused of making up the rules in favour of the home team.

Foul ball. There are no rules to support INT. If the defense can touch the ball prior to coming into fair territory, why cannot the offense? Hell, the fielder is even allowed to throw their glove at the ball to keep it from coming into fair territory!

Foul ball
 

Foul ball. BR touches foul ball in foul territory. If we have a foul ball and BR touches it inadvertently in foul territory, we still have a foul ball. That way, I'm not trying to figure out intentional vs. inadvertent. I've got enough things to keep track of without trying to jump into a player's head.

If you called BR out, you could justify it by saying it's an unfair act not covered in the rules, and BR kicked the ball to gain an advantage. I could sell either call, but the easier call would be foul ball.

I'd say, "Coach, show me in the rules where it's illegal for a player to kick a FOUL ball. She kicks a FAIR ball, she's out."

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.

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.

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? :D

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.)

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 :)

Citations please.

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

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.

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...

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...

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

It's pronounced, "keeyick", and is 'down-Eastern'.

Actually fat fingers and not proof-reading.

Bob

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.

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!

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

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?)

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.

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.

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.

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!

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??

Do you penalize the defense for contacting a ball in foul territory to keep the BR from getting a base hit? If not, why not? It is the exact same scenario, just a different team touching the ball for a different reason based on supposition.

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!)

The "monsters" are often the ones we learn the most from. The cut & dry when 3 - 4 of us all answer the same way in an hour are very useful to the questioner and just as useful; but teach in a different way. :cool:

In my judgement, a BR who stops a ball from rolling into fair territory has displayed poor sportsmanship and I would call them out.

POE 49 "The values of softball competition are based on sporting behavior and fair play. Coaches and players are expected and trusted with these values."

Is that the proper penalty for sportsmanship? What penalty is called for if someone (in ASA) has committed an unsporting act?

While I agree that it's not fair and not proper, that's just my opinion. Is it really not fair? Mike's supposition is very good, in that we don't penalize the defense for making a play on a ball in foul territory that may well go fair. Here's a for instance: slow roller down 1B line. Pitcher, catcher, 1B, whoever else are gathered around. The instant the ball is foul one (or more) swipe at the ball, make contact and bat it foul with their glove.

Of course they can do this because the rule book infers they can do that. But there's nothing specific that says they can — just like there's nothing specific that says the offense can't contact a ball that is foul.

only in Canada eh?
 

Well.... in the Quirky country of Canada, the casebook Rule 8 ,case 231 gives the following-"The batter hits a pitched ball on the ground towards first. The batted ball is touched by the batter-runner in his advance toward first The touching is :
a) intentional
b) accidental, ball on fair ground, hasn't passed an IF
c) accidental on foul ground
d) accidental, on fair ground, has passed an IF

RULING:
a)and b)-Dead ball, Out for interference.:eek:
c) Foul ball, no interference:)
d) Fair Ball, no interference, unless deliberate contact was
made. :rolleyes:

Maybe we should ask the question, "When is a live ball a foul ball?" It may be in foul territory but it is not considered foul until the ball stops or is touched.
Could the rule of the ball touching the batter when the batter is out of the batter's box be implemented to call the batter out???

Batter prevents ball from rolling fair
 

It would sure appear to me that there should be no difference in the treatment of offense and defense in this type of situation. If we're going to call the BR/runner out if they make contact with a ball that "appears" to be rolling toward fair territory, then you must award the base to the BR on the bunt/batted ball rolling down the chalk line that slips into foul territory and is immediately grabbed/slapped/touched by the defense. There is no discernible difference in my mind. Be consistent, gentlemen, that's all we're asked to be.

By the way, John ;) , the "implication" is in the book, but the "inferrence" is being made by all of us.

I hope that item "C" is a misprint. You can't have a foul ball on a batted ball that is touch in fair territory. You can have a dead ball situation, but never a foul ball or am I missing something here.

There is no discernible difference in my mind.

Fielders are supposed to field the ball and do so to their own advantage. Batters and runners are not supposed to touch or guide or interfere with batted balls.

However, if in ASA batter-runners or runners are indeed permitted to pick up foul balls on their way to 1B, that rule doesn't bother me particularly. But if I were in charge of ASA rules, I would include the following words from another code:

"It is interference by a batter or runner when he intentionally deflects the course of a foul ball in any manner." The interpretation under that code is that the ball had to have a chance to become fair.

I agree with the posters who say that a team should not be able to benefit from USC. Worse than kicking a foul ball, a BR should not be able to commit deliberate interference and benefit his team—but in a certain situation in ASA, he can.

Well.... in the Quirky country of Canada, the casebook Rule 8 ,case 231 gives the following-"The batter hits a pitched ball on the ground towards first. The batted ball is touched by the batter-runner in his advance toward first The touching is :
a) intentional
b) accidental, ball on fair ground, hasn't passed an IF
c) accidental on fair ground
d) accidental, on fair ground, has passed an IF

RULING:
a)and b)-Dead ball, Out for interference.
c) Foul ball, no interference
d) Fair Ball, no interference, unless deliberate contact was
made.

Obviously answer (c) is not correct.

Incidentally, is there a rule in ASA that prevents the following?:

Batter hits a roller down the 3B line. The ball is two inches foul but is moving toward the line. F5 charges, but before he can pick it up, the 3B coach beats him to the ball by diving and touching the ball.

Substitute "runner from 3B" for "coach." Same thing?

If these actions are legal, ASA has some rule changes to make.

I'm assuming the correction above...

Anyway, the problem is that the ASA book very carefully inserts "fair" into the interference rules on a runner with a batted ball, as in "makes contact with a fair batted ball..." in 8-2-F-4.

ASA makes no provision for intent here; it doesn't matter as far as the ASA book is concerned.

Contact with a batted ground ball in foul territory by a player is definitionally a foul ball (1-FOUL BALL-C). The rule makes no distinction between an offensive or defensive player.

You are correct. Thanks, for catching my blunder. I've edited my post.

You know how it drives you nuts when coaches make up their own rules?

Another scenario. A bounding ground ball in foul territory is grabbed by the base coach. However, based on this thread's "assumption" that "the ball could possible come back into fair territory", you better be prepared to call somebody out.

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".

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....