As opposed to what other type of foul ball? A ball in flight may be a ball over foul territory, but it is not a foul ball until it is no longer in flight and not caught.

I see said the blind man. I was not thinking it through obviously. Thank you sir.;)

No, the catcher was in fair ground and the ball was travelling in the air toward the catchers glove. In what way is this not a play? It is an attempt by a fielder to retire an offensive player.
As for predicting the future, you do it all the time in calling interference. Ball hit toward F5. Runner coming hard from 2nd to 3rd runs in to F5. No one covering third. Out for interference because I saw that in the future the 3rd baseman was making a tag or throwing to first.
________
KarlaXXX

You can try to justify it any way you want, it doesn't wash. You do not have interference by present definition or rules.

No, F1 is out for interfering with the fielder's opportunity to field a fair batted ball which is specifically covered in the rules. You are not predicting anything.

youngump:
What they said. No play. Can't predict future. Remember priorities: Fair/Foul status first.

:)

What kind of beer are we drinking in February?

Hahaha! It's not my call this year on what's being served to the masses. However, I do believe you'll be buying me something amber in color and malty to taste.

;)

And why will I be buying?

Why not copper in color and full of Cascade hop flavor??? Or golden in color and full of malt/Saaz hop flavor? Or...well...you get the drift. :D

As has already been stated by others, if the ball is touched in foul territory, or the contact occurs while the ball is in foul territory, this is a foul ball. Can't make a play with a foul ball, as the ball is immediately dead. That has been the gist of this entire thread, which was leather and glue a long time ago. Go back and read the thread from the OP. I think you will see it.

As others have said, you rule on what happened when it happened. At the point of contact you have to judge was the ball fair or foul. If Fair we get INT cause you can be attempting to retire an offensive player (thus making a play) if foul then it is just a foul ball, no chance to make a play (can't get an out on a foul ball) so no chance for INT.

In your other case as others have said, at the time of the contact the ball is in fair territory so it is ruled a fair ball and the INT is enforced. And also as stated the out is not for what might happen is it for what did happen. Heck in your case the same could happen, ball could hit rock or bad spot in field and roll foul before it was ever touched....BUT in that case the ball was in fair territory when you stop action for the INT, so it is ruled fair and the INT enforced regardless of where the ball went after the contact.

No, in my case the ball was foul at the time of the hindrance. The fielder was attempting to field a live ball. It became dead because of the interference and at that point it couldn't be played. There are other pathological situations where you could have interference where you have to assume the ball wasn't going to be dead before it got to the fielder. For example a fly ball where the fielder is shoved out of the way followed by a massive wind blowing it out of play. He wasn't actually making a play because he had no opportunity to retire the runner. However, I've got a dead ball at the time of interference unless I never believed he had a play. I'm predicting the future.

Notwithstanding, I'm mildly but slightly convinced that the intent of the rule here is to make interference while the ball is foul a legal way to avoid being put out. Were I on the rules committee, it'd be changing next year. But that's not going to happen. The OP I am strongly convinced and my variant very mildly.
________
HOW TO ROLL BLUNTS

You can come up with all kinds of bizarre woulda coulda's but in your fly ball example, there is a specific rules that addresses that (re: 7-6-I, 8-7-J-1), and you are calling the situation as it is at the time you call it... it is a foul fly ball and the fielder is attempting to field it. That's it. No Nostradamus required.

The OP should be a simple case of a definitional foul ball, but ASA has confused the rule by saying "runner" and "interferes with". Replace that with "offensive player" and "hinders" and this whole thread goes away.

But then we'd have had nothing else to comment about other than "Umpire" Josh.

This thread has been kinda like the Eveready rabbit, in that it "keeps going and going" Aren't there any fresh subjects to bring up? Dave

Well, we could talk about what other "runner" rules are routinely applied to batter-runners, or when, exactly, does a batter become a batter-runner... wait, we've talked about that last one... ;)

So...how long does anyone think Sean Avery would last playing SP softball??? :D

Because I will require it.

;)

From my experience with Men's SP, he would fit right in.

NHL = commie *******s!

Somebody should welcome them to the USA and teach them about the Constitution and Bill of Rights

Quick civics lesson... (emphasis added).

If I stood up in my workplace and shouted for all to hear remarks similar to his, I would most likely be fired, not suspended. The first amendment says that the government cannot pass laws to abridge freedom of speech. Private businesses (such as my employer, the NHL...) may restrict speech in their workplace in what ever manner they choose.

You are correct and I agree as the same result may occur in my place of employment. However, the NHL is NOT his employer. The team employs him and if the team owner wanted to take internal action, that is fine as I'm sure it would get the support of the NHL should the issue go to arbitration.

There was also talk in the media about charges being brought against Avery. Where do they come up with this crap? At most, this is a civil matter that involves only one person who can determine whether to file or not. OTOH, if the comments, no matter how distasteful, were to be found as accurate, what then?

Now you're getting into how freedom of speech is really being abridged. There is a whole series of legislation that results in the government passing laws that restrict freedom of speech. Employment discrimination laws, "hostile work place" laws, harassment based on gender, national origin, religion, etc., laws, hate crime laws... all of these are laws that in their application have come to mean that a person can be prosecuted and put into prison based solely on what they say. Just because a law has good intentions does not make it a good law. With the incoming administration, this has no where to go but down.

That (a civil suit) would be an exercise in futility. The uncontrovertable fact, no matter how rudely stated, is that Elisha Cuthbert is "sloppy seconds"; and as a "public figure", she isn't immune from rude statements that are true.

True that the NHL isn't his direct employer, but the NHL is the body that has the collective bargaining agreement with the players union; there is certainly a clause that makes "in the best interest of the game" actions legitimate.

Very slippery slope. You are talking about an individual's personal opinion concerning another individual which did not involve any business actions of the NHL or the game of hockey.

Where do you draw a line? If a hockey player buys a piece of equipment from a company which is a sponsor of a NHL franchise and publicly slams the equipment and the company which sells it to the press, is he liable to be suspended "in the best interest of the game"?

I'm a firm believer that the more you make of something with which you disagree, the more exposure that individual's opinion gets.

Shame on Avery for being an ***. Shame on the press for being stupid enough to think his comments are news worthy (yet they refer to themselves as "journalists") and shame on the NHL for declaring themselves for making more of something than it should have been made.

This action by the holier-than-thou idiots is just another reason for intelligent folks to join P.O.O.P.

YouTube - How to poop :D

This cartoon also covers what I think of this statement:

Ah, no.

This version is better.

YouTube - How To Poop - English Subtitles