Situation : Interference ?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by wadeintothem

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.

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.

[Andy]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

...but there would have to be some serious tap dancing.

[AtlUmpSteve]

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

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

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

That's not all he put down...

This musta been from the annual comedy show aka LLWS.

[Skahtboi]

Originally Posted by Dakota

That's not all he put down...

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.

[mcrowder]

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.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by mcrowder

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.

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".

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.

However, by rule at that particular point in time, there was no interference.
[quote]

[JefferMC]

Originally Posted by Skahtboi

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've seen real umpires dancing with the mascot in Single A ball. Okay, maybe they weren't real umpires, but they stayed on the field near the 1B line when pitches were being thrown.

[tcannizzo]

I don't recall seeing either of these rules (definitions) cited in this long, but interesting thread.

FAIR BALL.
...Detached equipment discarded by the offense or defense over fair terrritory becomes part of the ground and has no effect in determining fair/foul status when a batted ball initiates contact with theh equipment (as long as it was not an intentional act by the player when contacting the ball.)...

Since there is a referrence to fair/foul status in this, and there is a referrence to intent, would there be a potential interpretation from this perspective?


FOUL BALL.
D. While over foul territory, a runner interferes with a defensive player attempting to field a batted ball.

a.) Does "runner" include "batter-runner"?

b.) Would "R or B-R deliberatley kicking the ball while over foul teritory" constitue interfering with a defensive player attempting to field a batted ball? INT?

[greymule]

FOUL BALL. [a batted ball that . . .]
D. While over foul territory, a runner interferes with a defensive player attempting to field a batted ball.

a.) Does "runner" include "batter-runner"?

b.) Would "R or B-R deliberatley kicking the ball while over foul teritory" constitue interfering with a defensive player attempting to field a batted ball? INT?

Good point. It looks as if the ball rolling fair after the interference is irrelevant.

I would say that runner does include batter-runner.

I think we decided that in ASA, it is not interference if a BR or runner intentionally kicks a foul ball, even if the ball had a chance to become fair. This is contrary to NCAA, which like OBR specifically prohibits such action. I don't know about FED.

[AtlUmpSteve]

If a batter-runner is not intended as a subset of runner, then BR is not out for running violations not enumerated in 8.2. While 8.2-B includes "if legally put out prior to reaching first baes", it doesn't spell out "out of the basepath to avoid a tag" without regard to the running lane, or whether being tagged or even if the ball beats the BR to first base applies.

It is my opinion that all batter-runners are runners, too; just a separate class with added rules and exceptions; if not an exception, the included rules apply.

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

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.

hmm.. so the real answer is obvious, since either INT ruling (OBS is not a valid ruling IMO) could get you dragged before a protest.

If at all possible, rule in the manner that favors the team that will probably lose the game.