Catcher not returning ball to pitcher

[DaveASA/FED]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

B1 hits a ground ball down the first baseline, and while the ball is momentarily in foul territory, runs into F1 that was closest to and in the process of charging to field the ball about 30' from first base. The ball rolls and stops in fair territory close to F1, now laying on the ground.

Ok let me ask this then what if the same play happens but the ball ends up staying in foul territory? Thus becoming a foul ball. I would have before this discussion called INT and sent the BR packing. BUT, and I am sure I am missing something:
1) if you have to be a BR to be out for INT with someone fielding a batted ball
2) the ball has to end up fair to be a BR

Then in this case they aren't a BR so you can't call them out for the INT?

I was thinking about the basic defination of INT:
The act of an offensive player...that impeded, hinders...a defensive player attempting to execute a play.

and the defination of a play:
An attempt by a defensive player to retire an offensive player.

At the time of the contact the defensive player was attempting to field a foul ball, which would put the batter back at bat, not retire them. So does this actually constitue a play so we could use the basic defination of INT to still get them out on a foul ball???

And I accept the hijack award and I also want to add I am truly trying to get this straight in my head, not be a pain in the butt. Even though I am good at that, it is not my intent this time!

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by DaveASA/FED

Ok let me ask this then what if the same play happens but the ball ends up staying in foul territory? Thus becoming a foul ball. I would have before this discussion called INT and sent the BR packing. BUT, and I am sure I am missing something:
1) if you have to be a BR to be out for INT with someone fielding a batted ball
2) the ball has to end up fair to be a BR

Then in this case they aren't a BR so you can't call them out for the INT?

I was thinking about the basic defination of INT:
The act of an offensive player...that impeded, hinders...a defensive player attempting to execute a play.

and the defination of a play:
An attempt by a defensive player to retire an offensive player.

At the time of the contact the defensive player was attempting to field a foul ball, which would put the batter back at bat, not retire them. So does this actually constitue a play so we could use the basic defination of INT to still get them out on a foul ball???

And I accept the hijack award and I also want to add I am truly trying to get this straight in my head, not be a pain in the butt. Even though I am good at that, it is not my intent this time!

A reasonable extension of where the thread has headed, not so much a hijack.

It isn't INT, because the only INT on a foul ball is interfering with a foul fly. In every case, there has to be a play to rule INT, and a grounded foul ball cannot result in a play.

But, not open season on foul balls; you can judge it USC. You just can't get an out that wasn't possible absent the INT.

[Dakota]

The rule being discussed does not apply to any of the tortured "when does the batter become a batter-runner and when does the batter-runner become a batter" angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin scenarios for one very simple reason. They are all after a batted ball, not after a pitch.

Sorry to spoil your fun.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by Dakota

The rule being discussed does not apply to any of the tortured "when does the batter become a batter-runner and when does the batter-runner become a batter" angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin scenarios for one very simple reason. They are all after a batted ball, not after a pitch.

Sorry to spoil your fun.

Certainly true.

The relationship goes back to the assertion that it is possible to judge an attempt for a putout without a runner or batter-runner, and the following discussion as efforts to prove or disprove that possibility. So the discussion isn't without merit, but, yes, it digresses from the initial issue.

[Dholloway1962]

The batter is supposed to keep one foot in the batter's box between pitches, with a few exceptions. Losing track of the count is not an exception. On a 2-1 count, if the runner takes off for 1B on strike 2 (swinging on pitch in dirt), thinking it is a D3K, I have strike 3 and batter is out.

That is as absurd as calling ball 4 on the 3-1 count scenario in this posting.

Dave, don't make the ball 4 call. Use common sense like you are trying to do, call nothing (other than bringing the batter back) and play on.

[SRW]

Originally Posted by Dholloway1962

The batter is supposed to keep one foot in the batter's box between pitches, with a few exceptions. Losing track of the count is not an exception. On a 2-1 count, if the runner takes off for 1B on strike 2 (swinging on pitch in dirt), thinking it is a D3K, I have strike 3 and batter is out.

No you don't. Batter swung at the pitch. That's an exception to leaving the batter's box.
ASA 7.3(C-2)

[Dholloway1962]

Originally Posted by SRW

No you don't. Batter swung at the pitch. That's an exception to leaving the batter's box.
ASA 7.3(C-2)

Who cares...this is OOO at it's best. In this situation, just let it go was my point

[DaveASA/FED]

SRW you are right, but if the count was 2-2 at the TOP and they run to first without swinging (say guy has low zone and a crappy catcher) if they leave box on that one thinking it is a d3k we could call them for violation and get strike 3.

Again not saying I'd do it, just like I might forget to call a ball if the F2 throws cause the batter takes off

[youngump]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

A reasonable extension of where the thread has headed, not so much a hijack.

It isn't INT, because the only INT on a foul ball is interfering with a foul fly. In every case, there has to be a play to rule INT, and a grounded foul ball cannot result in a play.

But, not open season on foul balls; you can judge it USC. You just can't get an out that wasn't possible absent the INT.

IIRC, the definition of a foul ball includes interference committed while the ball is foul. (Maybe only fair, which is part of the solution to this problem.) Are you saying the only way that's possible is a fly ball?
Sitch for you, runner on third, the ball is running up the third base line medium speed and foul and hits a rock turning toward fair. F5 sees that she has a play on the batter runner and moves her glove just above the line waiting for the ball. R1 sees this and reaches down and pushes the glove into the ball. Do we have a foul ball or interference with a foul ball?
________
WEB SHOWS