Situation : Interference ?
 

Batter hits a slow roller down towards 3rd base in foul territory . Ron 3rd
F 5 moves towards ball and is banged into by runner . All this occurs in foul territory .
The ball eventually rolls into fair territory .
Do we have interference ?
If not what should we do ?

If F5 was "fielding" the ball.

Speaking ASA

Was it a fair ball? Was the defender "fielding" the ball? If the answer to both questions is "yes", then I believe you have interference.

Does it really matter if the ball eventually rolled fair? If the defender was trying to touch the ball in foul territory to make it foul ball and was interfered with making this play, wouldn't it still be INT?

Go back and see how that fits into the two questions I asked.

Speaking ASA

It is interference if a:
"batted fair ball"
"foul fly ball"
"fielder attempting to throw the ball"
"intentionally with a thrown ball" or
"intentionally with a defensive player haveing the opportunity to make an out with a deflected batter ball."

You've got nothing but a foul ball until the ball becomes fair - correct? So, since you have a slow roller I'm guessing you'd just watch the play until the ball becomes fair and then kill the play - correct? Mike, would it be appropriate to give a delayed dead ball signal since it's a foul ball if it remains foul and the ball's then dead and if it goes fair it's dead . . probably minutia but interesting to me none-the-less.

The sticking point here is that the rule is that it applies to interfering with a defender attempting to field a "batted fair ball". If you rule interference immediately, the ball, by rule, is dead which would make it a foul ball and INT is not applicable. If you wait for the ball to become fair and the fielder is no longer attempting to field it, there is no interference.

To be honest, whatever you call, you better be able to sell it because someone is not going to be happy either way.

This answers my questions.:)

Its an interesting theory question though, and I agree, someones going to be pissed off.

I wonder though, as to what is the by the book correct call..

It seems to me that all balls are fair until they are foul.. so a slow roller up 3b foul side of the line is fair.. until its foul.

So I think technically.. INT is correct.

The ball was never foul in this situation, it was fair at all times. The reason being.. a foul ball is a dead ball. A ball doesnt "go fair".. it goes foul.

Seems to me anyway.

This discussion brings to mind a talk I had last winter with a member of the NFHS staff about the difference between interference on a batter and on a batter-runner.

In the OP we have a runner from 3B that makes contact with a defender. ASA 8.7-J states that interference is the call when a runner interferrs with a fielder attempting to field a batted fair ball. At the time of contact the ball was in foul territory, so we do not have a fair batted ball. Of course, the fielder may have been trying to kill the ball foul because he did not have a play for an out, but we don't have a rule to cover that.

The interpretation from my NFHS friend was "no interference."

The problem is with ASA 8.2-F which is about a batter-runner interferring with a fielder attempting to field a batted ball! Now assume we have a bunt outside the 1B line and F1 comes over to the ball and is contacted by the B-R. Doesn't matter the location of the ball; it is a batted ball. Interference is the call (NFHS interpretation, but NFHS and ASA rules are identical).

I have no idea why we have two rules that can be so contradictory in application to similar situations. Originally both rules used the words "batted ball." In 1999 (or 2000?) ASA added the adjective "Fair" to the runner rule (8.7) but not to the B-R rule 8.2. Is this a typo, or error of omission? The word "fail" adds clarification to the rule and it is logical that ASA deliberately did so. But why not 8.2 also?

WMB

But what makes it a foul ball?

I agree no criteria has really been met to make it fair.. except, its definately not foul. If it were foul, it would be dead. Its a tweener, but not a foul ball.

A fielder making a play on a ball thats not foul (ie fair) is a legit play.. that would make it INT.

There are only two types of batted balls.

A fair ball
A foul ball (which is dead)

This ball rolled fair, by the way. But we wouldnt know that at the moment of INT.

In hindsight, and since we are in discussion of theory -- defense was disadvantaged by a crash on a play fair ball. A ball that settled fair.

A ball simply being temporarily over foul territory is not foul or dead. The criteria for foul is very specific.

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

A fair ball is also specific
A legally batted ball that settles on fair territory between home and first and home and third .
This ball at the crash was not fair as it was still moving and was not foul for the same reason .
If you do judge this as INTF then thats when you kill the ball so then it becomes foul and therefore no INTF .

Yep youre in a tough spot lol. Little bit more important for you to get it right.

I think the answer lies in the squeeze play which will illustrate why the intent of this rule would necessitate INT.

Slow spinning bunt 4 ft up the line on foul side but with the obvious motion that its going fair.. it's moving to fair territor quickly as a matter of fact.

Hard charging R1 from 3B -- F2 is reaching down to touch the ball foul.. runner runs through the catcher knocking the catcher over who misses touching the ball. The ball settles fair as it was obviously going to.

Nothing blatant for USC.. the decision is

Score the run or INT.


Those that score the run dont understand the intent of INT nor acknowledge that making a play on a otherwise fair ball to make it foul is a legit defensive play worthy of the protections of the intent of the rule.


To answer your other post.. a ball that settles fair before 3B is fair.

So a ball on the foul side that settles fair is fair.

And defensive players making a play on that ball are entitled to the protections of INT.

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. :cool:

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."

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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?

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]

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.



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.

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.

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

youre on the fence mike!!

Take a stand.. dont be a John Kerry. :D 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. :cool:

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.

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.

whatchu talkin bout willis? :confused: OBS?

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.

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 think you mean fair ball

I agree thats a possible way to call it.

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

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.

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]

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.

:D

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.

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?

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.

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.