Whats the call?

[SRW]

Out.
ASA 8-2-F(1)

[DaveASA/FED]

Well SRW that's one way to look at it, any other votes?

[youngump]

Originally Posted by DaveASA/FED

Well SRW that's one way to look at it, any other votes?

I agree with SRW as to how I will continue to call it on the field. However, as was pointed out in the other thread where I also said I was going to ignore the book and call it as intended: 8-2-F is interference by the batter runner. 8-2-1 defines when the batter becomes a batter-runner. Hitting a foul ball doesn't qualify.

Nonetheless, in spite of not getting much response there, I believe this is how people are actually calling it. Note, I'd also apply the definition of foul here to the batter in a similar disregard for the book. That is this is a foul ball as soon as the interference occurs so no subsequent action counts just as if any runner had committed the interference. So I'd be sending runners back to TOP not last base touched before the interference. (Not that these would be different in an OP like this.)
________
Medical marihuana dispensory

[SRW]

Originally Posted by SRW

Out.
ASA 8-2-F(1)

It's taken 85+ posts to finally convince me that my original interpretation of this scenario is wrong.

I've now got a foul ball in the OP.

[Texasbock]

Originally Posted by SRW

It's taken 85+ posts to finally convince me that my original interpretation of this scenario is wrong.

I've now got a foul ball in the OP.

Are you sure about that?

[Skahtboi]

Originally Posted by Texasbock

Are you sure about that?

Here we go again.....

[SRW]

Originally Posted by Texasbock

Are you sure about that?

Yep.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by SRW

Yep.

So, I think the case is fairly convincing as well because in the OP there is no attempt to make a play. What about in the case where the ball is slightly foul, headed fair and the fielder is trying to play it in fair territory? Then you did meet the definition of a play, no?
________
Colorado medical marijuana dispensaries

[Skahtboi]

Originally Posted by youngump

So, I think the case is fairly convincing as well because in the OP there is no attempt to make a play. What about in the case where the ball is slightly foul, headed fair and the fielder is trying to play it in fair territory? Then you did meet the definition of a play, no?

It is either foul or it isn't. If it is foul, that is what it is. Period. No play can be made with a foul ball.

[Texasbock]

Originally Posted by Skahtboi

It is either foul or it isn't. If it is foul, that is what it is. Period. No play can be made with a foul ball.

No play can be made with a "grounded" foul ball.

Right? Or is that implied?

[youngump]

Originally Posted by Skahtboi

It is either foul or it isn't. If it is foul, that is what it is. Period. No play can be made with a foul ball.

Sure it can. Terrible bunt hits a rock in foul territory and is now flying back toward the catcher. Batter had given up on it so she is standing in the box and the catcher has moved forward. Realizing the ball is about to go fair the catcher positions to make the catch and tag. That is a play. The batter runs through the catcher. I've met the definitions of interference have I not?
________
Lenya

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Texasbock

Are you sure about that?

Why? Do you still think it may have been too close to the line?