Not true. The definitions support the call of interference, assuming attempting to field a batted ball (not necessarily fair) can be construed as attempting to make a play. What the rules do not support is declaring the runner out.

The POE says two things that may pertain to this discussion:

and

This is obviously a hole in the rules. The umpire must make a call of some kind or ignore the contact.

Rule 10 allows the umpire to make a reasonable call, but he should not make up a new rule out of whole cloth. There is no support whatsoever for a delayed dead ball call on interference. There is no support whatsoever for declaring the batted ball a fair ball unless the contact is ignored altogether.

If the runner had contacted the ball instead of the fielder, it would have been a foul ball.

If the fielder had been successful in fielding the ball while still in foul territory, it would have been a foul ball.

The fielder was not given the opportunity to field the ball while in the playing field.

Stringing all of that together, I am still with the dead ball on the interference, no one out since the ball was foul. Rule 10.

Fair enough, although my name is Mike as well. :)
I can understand that - it seems odd... so consider it. Look at the rules around OBS and how it fits this situation. I would say (while reminding you guys that I have already said you cannot support an out for INT on this particular play) that there is just as much basis for an OBS call in this sitch as an INT call.

This is a difficult thread; not only is the question posed with no clear rules answer, but the the play is HTBT. First, there is no rules support for a DDB call; but there is no reason why the call might not be slightly delayed, as the umpire digests what has happened prior to making a ruling. So, no, do not put your arm out, and no, do not count to ten, but you could hold up a few short seconds to see the play to conclusion.

Secondly, the rule declares a runner or batter-runner out for interfering with a fielder attempting to field a fair batted ball. It doesn't necessarily require the act of interference to be simultaneous with every other part of that statement. For example, the act of fielding the ball may be 30 feet and several seconds away from a charging fielder, but if the fielder is contacted or shielded by a runner, it could be judged interference. And, in this play, it might be considered that the first contact interfered with a later opportunity to field the ball, when it became fair. For that reason, I dispute the notion that the ball must be fair at the moment of contact in the OP; if fielder is interfered, was in the act of attempted fielding, and the ball became fair (by rule), I believe the interference rule does support the runner or BR being called out.

For those who say the rule does not allow the ball to be declared foul and no out, they simply are grasping at a straw argument. Change the play slightly, and have the ball remain foul; now what is your ruling? Why, a foul ball, and no out, since the rule doesn't apply to give an out on a foul ball. What happens when the umpire makes an immediate dead ball call with a grounded ball over foul territory that hasn't passed first or third base? It is a foul ball by rule. Put those two together, and if the umpire declares the dead ball due to contact while the ball is still foul, that is the necessary ruling.

So, my position is that the umpire should delay the call (but not a delayed dead ball) within reason. If the ball becomes fair, I have an out, and, yes, I believe I can sell it. If the ball stays foul, I have a foul ball and nothing else (without an USC act added). To the coach who asks why I didn't call it when it happened, I respond that I needed to determine the status of the ball, and "it happened" when all the elements of the rule could be determined.

Would you be saying that F5 obstructed the runner attempting to score so that the ball would have time to roll fair and give F5 time to make a play?

Very well stated and I would agree with this ruling. However, as the umpire, selling it is a major part of this. If you cannot sell the call, you're going to have a problem.

The OP did leave alot to be desired in the matter of providing information.

For example, did the runner actually run into the fielder, or did the fielder step in front of the runner causing the collision. It was stated that everything occured in foul territory. How far foul may have bearing on the call? What the hell is the defender doing in foul territory? If fielding a batted ball to be presumed fair or going to become fair, there is no reason for the fielder to cross the path of the ball encroaching an area where the runner should be safe to advance or retreat. I may have to really wonder if the fielder was actually attempting to field the ball.

Personally, I liked the discussion. Besides, I had to find a way to bump up my post count :D

Good call, Steve. Now, if we can just stop all the ridiculous rule change proposals next week.

OK, but, recall what the OP said:Sure, HTBT, but I don't see this happening at all during a "delay ... within reason." I see everybody watching the ball slowly roll fair.

Thank you for posting this so rationally and succinctly:

"Secondly, the rule declares a runner or batter-runner out for interfering with a fielder attempting to field a fair batted ball. It doesn't necessarily require the act of interference to be simultaneous with every other part of that statement. For example, the act of fielding the ball may be 30 feet and several seconds away from a charging fielder, but if the fielder is contacted or shielded by a runner, it could be judged interference. And, in this play, it might be considered that the first contact interfered with a later opportunity to field the ball, when it became fair. For that reason, I dispute the notion that the ball must be fair at the moment of contact in the OP; if fielder is interfered, was in the act of attempted fielding, and the ball became fair (by rule), I believe the interference rule does support the runner or BR being called out."

Oh sure, now that Steve says it, cecil and Irish agree. Irish even stated to me, there is no rule book basis for my call.

Of course, wades been saying what steve is saying all along.

:D

But.. he did say it better than me, so well stated Steve.

And I still feel that way. But Steve raised the important issue of selling the call.

If you were umpiring and had someone like me coaching, and this call was made, we would end up in front of the protest committee. My argument would be simply the exact wording of the rules. Not saying that I would win, but there would have to be some serious tap dancing. :D

http://www.lansinglugnuts.com/fan_ac...%20-%20500.jpg

Don't let Emily see this!! He put down his symbol of authority.

That's not all he put down... :rolleyes:

This musta been from the annual comedy show aka LLWS.

That is not a real umpire. This is a show that one can see at any number of minor league ballparks across American. Actor dressed as an umpire dances with mascot, in Frisco said mascot would be Deuce the Prairie Dog, which is where I have seen this stunt performed before.

I mentioned this play to a friend of mine, and he gave me even better reasoning for calling DB when the fielder is interfered with while fielding what is at that moment a foul ball.

We (including myself) have said numerous times that this ball, while admittedly over foul territory, is not officially a foul ball, as it's not been contacted.

No one has mentioned, however, that on a NORMAL play of runners interference on a fielder fielding a fair batted ball, the ball, while admittedly over FAIR territory, is not officially a FAIR ball, as it has not yet been contacted.

So following the logic on the normal play, in which we declare dead ball due to the interference, and then rule an out based on the fact that the fielder was trying to field a batted ball that was fair at the moment of the interference... the logical and consistent conclusion on the OP is that we declare dead ball due to the interference, and then simply rule a foul ball based on the fact that the fielder was trying to field a batted ball that was FOUL at the moment of the interference.

It seems entirely consistent to simply rule dead ball when a fielder making a play on a batted ball is interfered with, and then rule out/no out (fair/foul) at that moment.

I can see no justification for DDB or for an out on this play.

Not true. Speaking ASA is it a fair ball based on Rule 1.Fair Ball.D which specifically addresses INT. There is no requirement to be "touched".
However, by rule at that particular point in time, there was no interference.
[quote]