Situation : Interference ?

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by debeau

Yep good theory question and I just had it at an ISF accreditation as my case play .
My answer was no interference play on could even have OBST.
Merle Butler who took the clinic said I was wrong .
Everyone at the clinic said I was wrong .
So as didnt want to embarrass Merle I asked him on his own.
Answer : Dead ball get the runner to return to 3rd and the batter to bat again .
I then asked the other examiner .
Wait until ball rolls fair then kill it and and have an out for Int
Then another examiner .
Dead ball runner out batter to 1st .
Other answers wer
Dead ball runner out batter bats on .
ISF mirrors ASA in the INTF rule but I really would like to know what to do the answer

I am amazed that a question such as this would be on an accreditation test without an agreed official interpretation among the examiners.

That said, I have several comments on points raised in this thread.

Speaking ASA.

First, I agree with WMB - there is no good reason to have the rule written differently for a R vs a BR.

Second, I disagree with the theory that all batted balls are fair until they become foul. If that were the case, Rule 1 could simply say "FAIR BALL - Any batted ball that has not been declared a FOUL ball."

Third, my comment just above is at least called into question by the wording of ASA rule 8-8-E, which uses the curious phrase "fair untouched batted ball over foul territory" - now, that could mean a batted ball that contacted a base (definition FAIR BALL - E) and was deflected by the base into foul territory. Otherwise, I don't see how any untouched batted ball could be fair and also over foul territory where a runner could contact it.

Fourth, I'm with argodad on the call.

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by argodad

Excellent discussion! Thanks debeau. Even the experts disagree. Again we see the value of this board. So now I know what I'm going to do if it happens to me. I'm going to kill it and call it foul at the point of collision.

As Mike said, I'm probably going to have to explain my decision to a coach. Offense shouldn't have to much to gripe about. (The other option was interference and an out.) If the defense comes out to talk: "Coach, you can't have interference on the runner on a foul ball."
"But Blue, it rolled fair!"
"It was foul when I killed the play, Coach. Let's play."

What rule is being used to kill the ball?

If its INT ... well then enforce the INT. I'm not sure how you are interpretting the rules to only enforce half of INT (just DB)

This is a do over... maybe easiest and the path of least resistance through coaches - but strictly by the book, I dont see how you (and Dakota) are doing it.

[mcrowder]

My take:

We have a ball with no current fair/foul status over foul territory.

We have a fielder interfered with. Dead ball!

At the moment of the dead ball, the ball is over foul territory, so we now have a FOUL ball.

By rule, there is no out for interference with a fielder fielding a grounded foul ball. So - no out. Just a foul ball.

In other words, while you have interference, you do not have a rules basis for an out. Logically, the only thing left is a foul ball.

[tcblue13]

Coach, The ball is dead on the interference on F5 by B1
The ball became dead in foul territory.
The foul ball nullifies the interference since interference can only be called on a fair batted ball.
Consequently all runners are returned to the bases occupied at the time of the pitch.
A strike is charged to the batter (if there are not already 2 strikes.)
Play on

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by mcrowder

My take:

We have a ball with no current fair/foul status over foul territory.

We have a fielder interfered with. Dead ball!

At the moment of the dead ball, the ball is over foul territory, so we now have a FOUL ball.

By rule, there is no out for interference with a fielder fielding a grounded foul ball. So - no out. Just a foul ball.

In other words, while you have interference, you do not have a rules basis for an out. Logically, the only thing left is a foul ball.

There is no rule-book basis for an INT call on a ball that is not fair. INT is very specific

[tcblue13]

That is the net result. No Int call

If you let the situation play out like a DDB sitch (I see this as the only other option)
Kill it whe F5 touches the ball and declare R1 out and put BR on first base. The O coach will go ballistic "Why the h*ck didn't you call it when it happened?"
"Well coach, it's technically not Int when the ball is foul, however the ball rolled fair so then it became interference so I had to call it then."

Now another question
Can a player "make a play" on or "attempt to field" a foul ball or a ball in foul territory?
Certainly yes if the ball does not touch the ground, but a slow roller that has not been ruled foul or dead is a different story isn't it?

Ergo, what do you do with the crash?
F5 has to be able to make a play on the ball, right?

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by tcblue13

That is the net result. No Int call

That is incorrect 100%. That ball isnt foul or dead. Simply Crashing into a fielder iis never a DB, unless by rule its DB for a reason. INT/DDB for OBS, etc .. SOMETHING must happen, some rule must come into play - for there to be DB on a crash.

[/quote]

If you let the situation play out like a DDB sitch (I see this as the only other option)
Kill it whe F5 touches the ball and declare R1 out and put BR on first base. The O coach will go ballistic "Why the h*ck didn't you call it when it happened?"
"Well coach, it's technically not Int when the ball is foul, however the ball rolled fair so then it became interference so I had to call it then."

Simply because a coach will go ballistic is not reason enough to not make the call.

The ball in the situation was a fair ball. the player never touched it, it settled fair, therefore, the fair aspect of INT is met.

There is a punitive effect of INT.. but some umpires are averse to enforcing a punitive punishment, and instead you are looking for a "Fair/equal way" to enforce this play.

The rules are clear.

Now another question
Can a player "make a play" on or "attempt to field" a foul ball or a ball in foul territory?
Certainly yes if the ball does not touch the ground, but a slow roller that has not been ruled foul or dead is a different story isn't it?

No, not at all. Not by any stretch of the imagination IMO. In fact, that is a live ball.. people are running, it is not a DB situation, it is not foul. Its not dead until its dead by rule. Furthermore, even killing a ball foul by a Defensive player is a very valid play. Interferring with that play, especially so as to ensure the ball continues fair is Interference.

No one questions that, what is being missed is the enforcement of that INT, which is actually clearly written.

Ergo, what do you do with the crash?
F5 has to be able to make a play on the ball, right?

Its obvious, a runner Interfered with a fair batted ball.

Everyone knows it, because the unanamious ruling is INT DB.

But you then disregard the punitive effect of INT and are on your own deciding how that INT gets applied: leaving out the written punitive punishment of INT.

There is no rule is ASA that says

"INT = DB, strike on batter (unless its 2 strikes), do over."

Int is DB runner out.. etc.


------------------------------------------

I do agree with Dakota about using this as a case play on his exam when its obvious there is differing opinon even among the examiners is beyond the pale.


VERY good dabate.

This one makes me think.

LBR was so tired.

[IRISHMAFIA]

The ball in the situation was a fair ball. the player never touched it, it settled fair, therefore, the fair aspect of INT is met.

There is a punitive effect of INT.. but some umpires are averse to enforcing a punitive punishment, and instead you are looking for a "Fair/equal way" to enforce this play.

The rules are clear.

Yes, the rules are clear. However, the "aspect" of INT is not met unless the fielder is interfered with while attempting to field a batted fair ball.

From the OP, it doesn't seem the defender was attempting to field the ball once it's status was deteremined as a fair ball.

Its obvious, a runner Interfered with a fair batted ball.

Everyone knows it, because the unanamious ruling is INT DB.

There you go, the tree-huggers have declared victory with no evidence to support the win. I don't believe there has been a consensus here.

There is no rule is ASA that says

"INT = DB, strike on batter (unless its 2 strikes), do over."

Int is DB runner out.. etc.

There is also no ASA rule that states interfering with a defender attempting to field a batted foul ball, unless a fly ball over foul territory, is interference.

There is no correct answer that includes an interference call to this scenario that can be attributed to the ASA rules.

I don't necessarily agree that should be the case, but if you are going to cite rules, you need to apply them as written or instructed via POE or clinic guide and those exceptions presently to not exist.

[wadeintothem]

youre on the fence mike!!

Take a stand.. dont be a John Kerry. This version of "iI ruled it foul before I ruled it fair....""

HAHAHA

(ok that was low, sorry buddy)

It aint a foul ball though. Nope, its a live ball.

Maybe youre waiting for your opinion by higher ups.

Hope so anyway, would love for one of your super connections to chime in.




I'm not sure i'm right by the way, I'm arguing this side for debate sake.. because I think the rules more support INT in this case, than do over or God Rule of easy cheesy all coaches happy.

I think its obviously this is a little hole in the rules, or at least clarifications.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by wadeintothem

youre on the fence mike!!

I'm not sure i'm right by the way, I'm arguing this side for debate sake.. because I think the rules more support INT in this case, than do over or God Rule of easy cheesy all coaches happy.

I think its obviously this is a little hole in the rules, or at least clarifications.

I'm not sitting on the fence, simply pointing out what you state in the last sentence. There is nothing in the rules to support ANY call involving INT. However, there is nothing supporting OBS since the fielder IS in the act of fielding a batted ball (no requirement to be fair).

Now, if the runner makes an obvious attempt to change the play with physical contact (shove, push, intentional bump, etc.), there may be a case for USC, but that is another thread.

[wadeintothem]

whatchu talkin bout willis? OBS?

[wadeintothem]

OK, after rereading what you wrote several times.. thats a shuck and jive mike. You are obviously intentionally not posting an opinion on rule.

What the heck are you talking about? USC and OBS??

Whats the friggin call if its not INT?

God Rule since there is no clear cut rule? No call?

There is some logic behind the others.. INT which kills the play, leaving ball foul at time of INT - so DB .. INT... Foul Ball.

But I dont know what you are talking about. If youre waiting for your opinion from higher ups, let us know. I think that would be awesome and you are a great resource for that-- but the shuck and jive, brother, thats just confusing.

[mcrowder]

You CAN NOT have an out for Interference on the OP. Is that "taking a side" enough?

You can only have an out if a runner Interferes with a fielder who is fielding a foul ball. He is not doing so.

However, I have no problem using rule 10 to rule a dead ball when a runner interferes (no capital on purpose) with a fielder on his way to field a ball that is currently over foul territory, and then ruling said ball foul even if it rolls back fair. It's obvious that this exact scenario is a hole in the rules. But I can't justify an out here, as the INT rule is explicit in its mention of "fielding a fair ball". And I can't justify a no-call here, as the runners actions have harmed the fielder and perhaps aided the offense. No out/foul ball seems the most justifiable result.

[tcblue13]

Originally Posted by mcrowder

You can only have an out if a runner Interferes with a fielder who is fielding a foul ball. He is not doing so.

I think you mean fair ball

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by mcrowder

You CAN NOT have an out for Interference on the OP. Is that "taking a side" enough?

You can only have an out if a runner Interferes with a fielder who is fielding a foul ball. He is not doing so.

However, I have no problem using rule 10 to rule a dead ball when a runner interferes (no capital on purpose) with a fielder on his way to field a ball that is currently over foul territory, and then ruling said ball foul even if it rolls back fair. It's obvious that this exact scenario is a hole in the rules. But I can't justify an out here, as the INT rule is explicit in its mention of "fielding a fair ball". And I can't justify a no-call here, as the runners actions have harmed the fielder and perhaps aided the offense. No out/foul ball seems the most justifiable result.

I agree thats a possible way to call it.

I was asking Mike to get off the fence though, not you.

Were on page 2 and the best he has done is say "whatever you call, sale it".

OK, well if its 110 degrees with whiney coaches, its an out. Play ball or take a walk

If its a nice day and all is going well .. DB. Do over. Everyone is happy.

I dont mind having my posts picked apart, especially in this scenario where there is no clear cut answer and I'm just picking a side and debating it... but at least post what you think the answer is... and for sure dont start talking about OBS or other stuff I havent mentioned. I never even considered OBS.