Whats the call?

[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.

[IRISHMAFIA]

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.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

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.

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

[MNBlue]

Originally Posted by youngump

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?

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.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

...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...

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...

Originally Posted by fantasy ASA ruling

... while it is true that a batter is not in jeopardy of being put out when the ball is declared foul, that does not give the batter immunity from being declared out due to infractions the batter commits...

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by Dakota

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.

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 penalty out is not enforced since it is a foul ball by definition and the batter-runner presto-chango becomes a batter.

[Skahtboi]

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

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by Skahtboi

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

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.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by Skahtboi

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

Problem is, the horse is not dead...

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

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 penalty out is not enforced since it is a foul ball by definition and the batter-runner presto-chango becomes a batter.

I guess you're not getting what I am saying. Rule 1-FOUL BALL-D is inherently self-contradictory. It defines as a foul ball a situation that requires interference where by definition there is no play, which is required for interference to be called. Since there is no play, there can be no interference, since there can be no interference, Rule 1-FOUL BALL-D can never apply.

However, knowing that the writers of the ASA Rule Book are not paragons of Vulcan-level logic, I suspect this self-contradiction is (probably) not intended. This leaves us with 3 alternatives for the rule:

1) ASA considers any fielder attempting to field a batted ball to be making a play, hence the interference call is valid, hence the BR / B is out, or

2) It is interference at the time of the contact (since the status of the ball is not yet determined), but the penalty for interference is not enforced because the act of interference itself defined the status of the ball as foul.

3) ASA is using the term "interferes with" sloppily and merely means generically impedes, rather than commits a defined act of interference.

Whichever way, the rule book has issues with this scenario.