Situation : Interference ?

[debeau]

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 ?

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by debeau

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.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by debeau

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 ?

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.

[tcannizzo]

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?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by tcannizzo

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."

[Mountaineer]

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.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Mountaineer

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.

[tcannizzo]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

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.

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

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.

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.

[WestMichBlue]

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

[wadeintothem]

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.

[debeau]

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

[debeau]

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 .

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by debeau

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

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.

[argodad]

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.

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."