Situation : Interference ?

[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?

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

There is nothing in the rules to support ANY call involving INT.

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:

Defensive players must be given the opportunity to field the ball anywhere on the playing field ... without being hindered.

and

When batter, batter-runner, runner, on-deck batter or coach interference occurs, the ball is dead, someone must be called out...

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.