Whats the call?

[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.

[Tru_in_Blu]

So can I expect that if a batter hits a foul pop fly somewhere in the vicinity of home plate or along the first base line that a) will clearly be a foul ball [unless it falls untouched and takes a weird bounde; and b) a defensive player has settled under the ball in order to make a catch, that the batter can run over to said defensive player, and swat at the ball or pull the defensive player's glove away from the ball and all I can do is probably call a foul ball??

That's a foul call, my friends.

Ted

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Tru_in_Blu

So can I expect that if a batter hits a foul pop fly somewhere in the vicinity of home plate or along the first base line that a) will clearly be a foul ball [unless it falls untouched and takes a weird bounde; and b) a defensive player has settled under the ball in order to make a catch, that the batter can run over to said defensive player, and swat at the ball or pull the defensive player's glove away from the ball and all I can do is probably call a foul ball??

That's a foul call, my friends.

Ted

No, my friend, that is a different scenario which is addressed by a different rule.

[Tru_in_Blu]

So Irish,

The discussion of the rule(s) being less than adequate would apply only to a foul ground ball? That would make me feel a little better. If you have the rule reference, I'd appreciate it.

I guess I was thinking the same rule would also apply to a foul fly, which doesn't seem right.

Thanx,

Ted

[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.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by Dakota

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.

And, I guess you aren't getting what I am saying, either.

You could come up with even more than those three possible alternatives if you wanted to stretch it further, but only one reasonably passes muster.

1. ASA defines a "Play"; in fact, that definition is newly added in 2007. It doesn't include this interpretation, so it isn't that.

2. Since ASA requires a "Play" to have the act of "Interference" that results in the penalty out, and at the moment of contact the definition establishes a foul ball, so there is no "Play", there isn't a penalty out to be enforced. It isn't "not enforced", there isn't one to enforce.

3. Ding-ding-ding!!! The remaining alternative is clearly the winner of the alternative ruling contest. This rule definition (Foul Ball D) misuses the word "interferes" when defined "Interference" cannot be the result.

If you simply accept that conclusion (your #3), all else works together, and there are no contradictions in the Rules 1, 7 and 8 in this play, as you previously stated; and Rule 10 application isn't necessary

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

A...If you simply accept that conclusion (your #3), all else works together, and there are no contradictions in the Rules 1, 7 and 8 in this play, as you previously stated; and Rule 10 application isn't necessary

#3 IS a contradiction. That is what I am saying. Rule 1-FOUL BALL-D IS a contradiction. With all of the fuss and bother to make the rules concerning interference a couple of years ago consistent with the lack of the word "intent" in the definition of interference, and with the over-precision ASA used in defining "play", this rule becomes self-contradictory. There can be no interference on a foul ground ball, hence the rule needs to be fixed. As can be seen from this very thread, this contradiction DOES result in some umpires calling an out in this scenario. The rule needs to be cleaned up.

"Ding, ding"

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Dakota

and with the over-precision ASA used in defining "play", this rule becomes self-contradictory.

Well, being one of the last folks involved in the wording of the definition of "play" in the rule book, I guess I should take exception to this comment . However, I do not as the reason the wording is precise is to make sure umpires don't go off in multiple directions reading into a rule as we see happen so often.

There can be no interference on a foul ground ball, hence the rule needs to be fixed. As can be seen from this very thread, this contradiction DOES result in some umpires calling an out in this scenario.

Which was a result of these umpires not reading and taking into consideration all aspects of the play and applicable rules. Some saw "ran into F3" and were immediately going to the INT.

The rules to cover this scenario are in place, and as previously noted, must be considered as a whole, not in selected portions. This is one reason why allowing coaches onto the field with a rule book is discouraged.