Situation : Interference ?

[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.