Whats the call?

[snorman75]

Hello all,
Great situation. I am at work with no rule book, but i did not see mentioned that a batter can interfere with a catcher making a play on a runner, so can we expand that to the batter interfering with a fielder making a play on the ball, be it fair or foul? Just asking.

[Skahtboi]

Originally Posted by snorman75

Hello all,
Great situation. I am at work with no rule book, but i did not see mentioned that a batter can interfere with a catcher making a play on a runner, so can we expand that to the batter interfering with a fielder making a play on the ball, be it fair or foul? Just asking.

What play can be made with a foul ball?

[3afan]

Originally Posted by ncasaump

okay, mr. Picky-pants.

[IRISHMAFIA]

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?

My "position" is that IF the umpire kills the play due to INT, the ball is foul at that point if over foul territory. Since I don't believe you can have INT based on a presumption that a ball "could" have evolved into a fair ball if allowed to continue to roll/bounce, I would have nothing on this play unless the R/BR did something unsportsmanlike and then there would be an ejection, but on INT.

A perfect example would be a play where a fielder throws a glove and contacts a ball over foul territory. Since it is a foul ball by definition, there cannot be a ruling based upon contacting a ball with detached equipment since that rule requires it to be a fair batted ball.

[DaveASA/FED]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

My "position" is that IF the umpire kills the play due to INT, the ball is foul at that point if over foul territory. Since I don't believe you can have INT based on a presumption that a ball "could" have evolved into a fair ball if allowed to continue to roll/bounce, I would have nothing on this play unless the R/BR did something unsportsmanlike and then there would be an ejection, but on INT.

Again that is what I am struggling with why do I kill the play when there is contact? if the ball is in foul territory we have no INT. So killing it for INT is not really a valid thing to do. I'm just thinking here not argueing it just seems wierd to me to kill the play for INT, when I kill the play the balls location determines whether it is fair or foul at that point, so the ball is foul so it is just a foul ball so the INT is removed. I can follow that logic and the rule base that would get me there. But I am foggy as to the proper mechanics to perform this action on the field.

[Dakota]

Mike linked to a discussion of a nearly identical situation above somewhere. This discussion was held about 2 years ago. Below I'm relying heavily on a reply I posted in that other discussion.

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 batter/batter-runner out.

The RS says two things that may pertain to this discussion:

Defensive players must be given the opportunity to field the ball anywhere on the playing field ... without being hindered.

and

When batter, batter-runner, runner, on-deck batter or coach interference occurs, the ball is dead, someone must be called out...

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.

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.

[DaveASA/FED]

Thanks Tom,
I can live with that!! That makes sense to me and I feel like it is sellable (is that a word?)

[Tru_in_Blu]

I'm with a couple of you thinking I had this, but the more I read, the cloudier it gets.

One thing a recall from the National Umpire School training last March: if interference is called, there has to be an out somewhere, possibly two given certain conditions.

A foul popup on which F1, F2, or F3 is hindered by the batter [becoming a batter-runner because no one should be waiting for the ball to land] should be called interference.

I think the issue is a ground ball that is rolling along the 1B line.

I know:
If the BR contacts the ball in fair territory, the BR is out;
if the BR contacts the ball in foul territory [accidentally or intentionally], the ball is ruled foul.

There was a situation posted several back where the BR and F1 collided while the ball was currently in foul territory and without being touched, and after BR reached 1B rolled back and settled in fair territory.

I guess I'm with several that wonder if that's interference. I also wonder if it might be obstruction since F1 was in the basepath without the ball in her possession.

In a similar but slightly different twist, batter hits a chopper off home plate that bounces very high down the 1B line. F3 is straddling the base line waiting for the ball to come down. Before she gets possession, the BR runs into her causing F3 to misplay the ball. F3 was attempting to make a play on a ground ball, and according to rule, if it's a fair ball it's a play, but if it's a foul ball, there can be no play. So after contact, if PU determines the ball was over foul territory, no play, incidental contact, foul ball, batter returns. But if PU determines ball was over fair territory, obstruction, interference, or nothing?

I've always been of the opinion that the BR must go around the fielder attempting to make a play [without going down that mink-lined definitional rathole]. Unless the fielder has the ball in her possession, and then the BR could be called out for running outside the basepath.

Ted

[topper]

Originally Posted by Dakota

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 batter/batter-runner out.

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.

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.

My understanding of a play involves the opportunity to retire a batter, batter-runner, or runner. This can't happen when the ball is rolling in foul territory.

Ignoring the contact and calling the ball foul once F1 touched it foul seems to be the only book-supported option.

[DaveASA/FED]

I think I would kill the ball as soon as the contact was made with a fielder attempting to field a batter ball. If the ball was foul at that moment, I would rule a foul ball. If asked by a coach I would have to say "Coach I screwed up I killed the ball out of habit when I saw the contact, the ball was in foul territory so it stays foul since I killed the play, so since it is foul there was no play to interfere with so it's just a foul ball"

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by DaveASA/FED

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.

OK, as I said, based on what I remember from prior discussions.

Also, remember I also postulated "A batted ball in flight or dribbling near the line or wherever else is not foul until it meets one of the foul ball criteria", which has had no discussion.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by topper

My understanding of a play involves the opportunity to retire a batter, batter-runner, or runner. This can't happen when the ball is rolling in foul territory.

But it can if the ball crosses the line before the fielder contacts it. A fielder has a right to field the batted ball unhindered.

Ignoring the contact and calling the ball foul once F1 touched it foul seems to be the only book-supported option.

How is ignoring the contact supported by the book? Are you relying on the head-of-a-pin argument that the offensive player is still just a batter? Since we have a live batted ball at the time of the contact, and the ball has not yet been declared fair or foul, your argument is this gives the ephemeral batter/batter-runner free reign to plow over the fielder?

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by Tru_in_Blu

... I also wonder if it might be obstruction since F1 was in the basepath without the ball in her possession....

It would only be obstruction if you were ruling that a different fielder was the one who had the play on the ball. As long as F1 is the fielder making the play on the batted ball, she cannot commit obstruction.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by DaveASA/FED

I think I would kill the ball as soon as the contact was made with a fielder attempting to field a batter ball. If the ball was foul at that moment, I would rule a foul ball. If asked by a coach I would have to say "Coach I screwed up I killed the ball out of habit when I saw the contact, the ball was in foul territory so it stays foul since I killed the play, so since it is foul there was no play to interfere with so it's just a foul ball"

I wouldn't take a mea culpa for a problem with the rule book.

[DaveASA/FED]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

Also, remember I also postulated "A batted ball in flight or dribbling near the line or wherever else is not foul until it meets one of the foul ball criteria", which has had no discussion.

A batted ball in flight is different there is a chance to get INT on that as there is a chance to catch it for an out (fits into the defination of a play) so you can interfere with it.

On a dribbler near the line I think the thought is that once there is contact you stop the play and rule where the ball is at the moment of contact if it is fair you have INT, if it is foul just a foul ball.