Well I am struggling with this. If I read the book you have to be a batter-runner to commit INT with a batted ball, and the ball has to be fair in order to become a batter-runner. So we do have a chicken and egg situation here. I don't know where in the rules it tells me to stop the play with contact when the ball is in foul territory, it can't be for INT since there has to be a fair ball to be a BR. So I'm not relying on it, but I am stuck reading the book and wondering if the batter is not still a batter until the ball is ruled fair as I read the book.

And we still have the USC to prevent the batter from plowing into the fielder.

But the definition of a foul ball says that when interference occurs while the ball is foul then it's a foul ball. For that to mean anything, you have to have a situation where a foul ball can be interfered with.
A foul fly ball comes to mind, but if you have interference with a foul fly ball you don't immediately call the ball foul. You call it dead for interference and call it foul by implication. You don't say just because it's foul, I have no interference.
Now, I'm not sure I remember the foul interference rule. If I had my book I'd look this up, but what do you do with the batter there? Interference by R1 at 3rd with a foul fly ball results in R1 being out, no? And if so, then B2 now has an extra strike. Whereas interference with R1 at 3rd on a fair fly ball results in the B2 becoming R2.
________
Glass Weed Pipe

Nit picking, but there is no such thing as a batted ball in flight as it pertains to ASA rules. By definition, a ball in flight is a fly ball; A batted ball must land somewhere which means it is no longer in flight.

You cannot have a foul, fly ball though the definition makes that reference A fly ball does not meet the definition of a foul ball.

If there is INT on a fly ball over foul territory, the ball IS dead and declared foul by rule.

The batter is also ruled out. Rule 8.7.J.1 w/NOTE and EXCEPTION

One thing I think we can all agree on is the rule book has issues with the scenario. Among them are:

o By definition, a play is an attempt to retire a runner or BR
o There must be a play for there to be interference
o If the call is interference, somebody is declared out
o By definition, interference with the fielder while the ball is in foul territory is a foul ball.
o A batter cannot commit interference on a batted ball, but our offender here is now a batter (again, still, who cares...)
o There is no play (by the definition of a play) on a ground ball in foul territory.

Make the call and explain it is the best we can do. The act of interference kills the ball and defines it as a foul ball, which defines the offensive player as a batter, which negates the expected out for the interference call.

Dead ball, foul ball, runners (if any) return, batter back in the box. Use Rule 10 to fill in the issues with Rules 1, 7, and 8.

It ain't pretty, but it seems to me to be about the best there is to do with this one.

Not if the play is killed for an unsubstantiated interference ruling.

Except for a stretch of Rule 10, how does it support killing the play?

Nope.

My piont, exactly.

A couple people responded to fragments of my post, but it must be viewed in its entirety to apply (like the rule book); so here it is again:
" batted ball in flight or dribbling near the line or wherever else is not foul until it meets one of the foul ball criteria.

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.

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. "

I don't get calling dead ball if you don't see the play as INT. An incidental collision does not cause a dead ball. Let's ignore the UC possibility, because that would need a separate topic.

Also, it is a "play" for a fielder to go after a ground ball in foul territory because it prevents it from going fair; stops progress of BR/R, etc.

ASA Definitions

Conclusions:

1. It is NOT a "Play", as defined by ASA, when a fielder is attempting to field a batted ball over foul territory that is not in flight; it may serve a strategic purpose, but it isn't a play.

2. It is NOT, therefore, "Interference", as defined by ASA, because the fielder is not attempting to execute a "Play". There is no out without that definition being met.

3. While the contact is NOT "Interference", it did interfere with the fielder, thus the definition of a "Foul Ball" has been met. The result is a strike on the batter, unless there are already two strikes.

4. When the definition of a "Foul Ball" was met, the status of the "Batter-Runner" reverted to "Batter", since the "Batter" did not hit a fair ball.

5. Since the moment of contact was simultaneous with the status reverting to a "Batter", 8.2-F(1) does not apply, rendering moot the argument that it doesn't state <i>fair</i> batted ball.

6. Rule 10 does not and need apply, since the application of the rules provide for an appropriate ruling. Foul Ball, no out, all runners return to the bases occupied at the pitch. If the contact is judged flagrant, the offender is ejected.

7. The NCAA ruling would be the same; the definitions are (reasonably) the same.

8. The NFHS definition of a "Play" would allow the OP to be a "Play"; but the status of a "Foul Ball" at contact still reverts the offender to a "Batter"; there is no applicable rule rendering a "Batter" out, unless the fielder involved is the catcher. In that limited event, it would be (IMO) OOO to apply a rule that doesn't appear intended to relate to a batted ball.

Steve,

I really wish you would stop and think about what you are going to post instead of these knee-jerk, half-hearted responses you offer.

:eek: ;) :D

So, if the ball is going to be fair and the runner blatantly interferes with the fielder to keep it foul, number 1 does not apply. Therefore number 2 does not apply. Would you call the runner out for interference in that situation and what would you do with the runners?
________
Depakote Class Action Lawsuit

In this play, you can't deal in what 'might be' - you can only rule on what is. If you called a dead ball on the contact while the ball is in foul territory, you are going to have a foul ball.

I disagree. Rule 1 defines it to be a foul ball if the batter-runner interferes with the fielder. Yet, as soon as that interference happens, "poof" the interference is not enforced since it is a foul ball by definition and the batter-runner presto-chango becomes a batter.

IOW, for this to be a foul ball under 1-FOUL BALL-D, there has to be an interference call, and an interference call demands that someone be declared out, and a foul ball means there is no longer a runner to declare out. Rule 10.

We are ending at the same place; I just think the rule book has a hole that needs to be fixed. After all, given SOME of the rule interpretations that have come down over time, it is not inconceivable that ASA would want the batter (née batter-runner) declared out as a result of the interference. I don't THINK they would, but you never know... I can see the rationale now...

Not completely accurate, and the difference is minimal but significant, but to reword your statement ....

Rule 1 defines it to be a foul ball if the batter-runner interferes with the fielder. Yet, as soon as that act of interfering that is not interference because there is no "play" happens, "poof" the <i>penalty out</i> is not enforced since it is a foul ball by definition and the batter-runner presto-chango becomes a batter.

Wow! We are going to beat this horse until it is nothing but leather and glue, aren't we?! :D

Hell, I said my $.02 long ago and bailed as soon as I realized we'd never get anywhere until ASA gives their official interpretation. ;)