Whats the call?

[celebur]

Originally Posted by MNBlue

ASA 8.2.F.1
Batter-Runner is out:

When the batter-runner interferes with:
1. a fielder attempting to field a batted ball.


I think the problem is in that because the batter contacted the ball with the bat, they are a batter-runner. Not entirely true. The definition of a batter-runner is: A player who has completed a turn at bat but has not yet been put out or reached first base. 8.1.A states: The batter becomes a batter-runner: as soon as the batter legally hits a fair ball.

Since the ball is not in fair territory, the batter never completed the time at bat, nor did the batter become a batter-runner.

Just my $.02.

How about if the ball was 'on the line' (i.e. in fair territory) at the time of contact between players and then rolled foul? As in the OP, the ball is neither fair nor foul at that moment.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by celebur

How about if the ball was 'on the line' (i.e. in fair territory) at the time of contact between players and then rolled foul? As in the OP, the ball is neither fair nor foul at that moment.

Again, the ball is either fair or foul based upon its location at the time of the INT call, so you cannot have both INT and consideration for the position of the ball after that moment.

[mdntranger]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

In this OP, the player who batted the ball, now the BR, interfered with F3 trying to field the batted ball, so the player who interfered is out, any other runner(s) return.

But, for there to be interference, there has to be a play. If the ball is foul (by definition), there is no play and therefore no intereference...

[MNBlue]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

In this OP, the player who batted the ball, now the BR, interfered with F3 trying to field the batted ball, so the player who interfered is out, any other runner(s) return.

The definition of a batter-runner has not been met in the OP, so we can't rule interference by a batter-runner, since we don't have a batter-runner.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Interference? Maybe!

Situation : Interference ?

Folks, we've been here at least twice before. Same arguments.

[WestMichiganBlue]

I luv it when we have two different rules - about the same subject - which give different results.

The OP is about a batter-runner interferring with a fielder attempting to field a batted ball. 8.2.F-1 is very clear; you have interference.

However, suppose the ball is outside the 3rd base line and R1 contacts F5 attempting to field the ball. Now we switch to runner rules. 8.7.J-1 rules for interferring with a batted fair ball or a foul fly ball. It is not a fair ball, and not a fly foul ball. No call.

I brought this to the attention of NFHS three years ago and they solved it with their "initial play" rule (attempting to field a fair batted ball). So whether B-R or Runner, its only interferrence on a fair batted ball.

WMB

[DeputyUICHousto]

What a conondrum.

I don't see how you can get an out here since the ball is not fair. Once the b/r runs into the defender attempting to field the ball over foul territory, it can only be a foul ball.

[Skahtboi]

No BR. No play as the ball is foul. No interference.

Foul ball.

[Dholloway1962]

Foul Ball for all the reasons stated previous. You guys all beat me to the punch!

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by mdntranger

But, for there to be interference, there has to be a play. If the ball is foul (by definition), there is no play and therefore no intereference...

My comment was specific to the BR or not aspect. There is a play when a fielder fields a batted ball while foul to prevent it from going fair, thereby eliminating any advance by BR or R.

Originally Posted by MNBlue

The definition of a batter-runner has not been met in the OP, so we can't rule interference by a batter-runner, since we don't have a batter-runner.

My INT call is based on the premise ""We have concluded in at least two other topics that the B to BR transition happens even though the batted ball does not end up being a fair batted ball; because it is not foul until the foul ball criteria apply and because it must be for the application of rules to make sense".

[greymule]

I can't think of a code in which the OP would not be a foul ball. (Just to be sure, I'm checking with the YSISF commissioner for their interpretation.)

However, ASA does go its own way on certain plays in the same vein. For example, a fielder can throw his glove at and hit a ball that is a few inches on the foul side of the line and apparently going to roll fair, and it's simply a foul ball. Similarly, a runner can deliberately kick such a roller and render it foul. Other codes (black-and-white rule in NCAA softball, interpretation in OBR) have violations on those plays.

But I don't think that ASA takes the "future" into account—whether the ball had a chance to become fair or actually becomes fair. In any case, the roller in the OP did not have such a chance.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by greymule

But I don't think that ASA takes the "future" into account—whether the ball had a chance to become fair or actually becomes fair. In any case, the roller in the OP did not have such a chance.

Sure they do. They ignore assumptions.

[DaveASA/FED]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

My INT call is based on the premise ""We have concluded in at least two other topics that the B to BR transition happens even though the batted ball does not end up being a fair batted ball; because it is not foul until the foul ball criteria apply and because it must be for the application of rules to make sense".

Well Cecil some concluded that the runner becomes a BR as soon as they hit the ball, I for one do not agree with that statement and this post was an attempt to bring that point out once again. As others have stated they can't be a BR until they completed their turn at bat, and hitting a foul ball does not do that....so there is no INT in this play just a foul ball. I argue that the rules as they are worded is that the batter remains a batter until they hit a fair ball. So if the ball is foul (baring any USC) they go back to bat, and all their actions are considered that of a batter. Once it is determined fair then all their actions from the time they hit it are considered actions of a batter-runner. BUT they have to complete their turn at bat to become a batter-runner....again a foul ball does not do that. So if they have not satisified one of the sections of rule 8 section 1 then they are still a batter.

[DaveASA/FED]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Again, the ball is either fair or foul based upon its location at the time of the INT call, so you cannot have both INT and consideration for the position of the ball after that moment.

Mike,
Just trying to understand your position. So once there was contact you would kill the play? Say "Dead Ball, Foul Ball"? When asked you killed it due to the contact but the ball was in foul territory at the time so it is a foul ball batter bat on?

[youngump]

Originally Posted by DaveASA/FED

Mike,
Just trying to understand your position. So once there was contact you would kill the play? Say "Dead Ball, Foul Ball"? When asked you killed it due to the contact but the ball was in foul territory at the time so it is a foul ball batter bat on?

Originally Posted by DaveASA/FED

Mike,
Just trying to understand your position. So once there was contact you would kill the play? Say "Dead Ball, Foul Ball"? When asked you killed it due to the contact but the ball was in foul territory at the time so it is a foul ball batter bat on?

So, I think we've all agreed that the rulebook leaves something to be desired but you all are changing what seems to me the wrong piece.

Three rules:

1. A Runner/Batter-Runner who interferes with a play on the ball while the ball is foul/fair makes the ball immediately foul/fair.

2. A batter does not become a batter runner until hitting a fair ball. (Plus other presently irrelevant stuff.)

3. Interference by the batter-runner requires a batted ball and by the runners requires a fair ball or fly foul ball. And on the batter it's a whole different ball game.

So in this situation, I'd let parts of three go long before I'd consider letting any of part 1 go.
I'm presently unconvinced by anyone that in this situation the correct thing to do is not call an out for interference and a foul ball. What am I missing?
________
Live Sex