Whats the call?

[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

[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.

[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"

[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.

[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?

[DaveASA/FED]

Originally Posted by Dakota

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?

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.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by DaveASA/FED

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

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by youngump

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..

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.

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.

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

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by youngump

But the definition of a foul ball says...(etc)

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.

[topper]

Originally Posted by Dakota

But it can if the ball crosses the line before the fielder contacts it.

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

How is ignoring the contact supported by the book?

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

Are you relying on the head-of-a-pin argument that the offensive player is still just a batter?

Nope.

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.

My piont, exactly.

[CecilOne]

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.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

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

Originally Posted by ASA Rulebook

Play: An attempt by a defensive player to retire a batter-runner or runner. A pitch is not considered a play except as it relates to an appeal.

Originally Posted by ASA Rulebook

Interference: An act of an offensive player or team member, umpire or spectator that impedes hinders or confuses a defensive player attempting to execute a play. Contact is not necessary.

Originally Posted by ASA Rulebook

Foul Ball: A batted ball that:
D. While over foul territory, a runner interferes with a defensive player attempting to field a batted ball.

Originally Posted by ASA Rulebook

Batter-Runner: A player who has completed a turn at bat but has not yet been put out or reached first base.

Originally Posted by ASA Rulebook

8.1-A: The Batter becomes a Batter-Runner as soon as the batter legally hits a fair ball.

Originally Posted by ASA Rulebook

By inference, all batted balls are fair, until rendered "Foul Ball" by definition, rule, or declaration.

Originally Posted by ASA Rulebook

8.2-F(1): Batter-Runner is out when the batter-runner interferes with a fielder attempting to field a batted ball.

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 fair 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.