Whats the call?

[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.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

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.

I agree a definition was needed, but the absolute requirement for there to be an attempt to retire a runner (as opposed to, for example, hold a runner), is overly precise, IMO. Having said that, I haven't thought through the implications of a broader definition, either.

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

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.

I agree, but that is no excuse for using the word "interfere" when definitional interference is not possible.

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

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.

I agree with this in principle, and as I posted earlier, the conclusion I come to is this is a dead ball and a foul ball, even though the BR/B did NOT commit interference as required by the rule.

However, given the other situations where a runner can forfeit protection by a base running violation, I can readily see how even diligent umpires could come to the conclusion that the BR is out due to interference.

Or, since interference is not possible, ignore the contact altogether. Either is a reasonable view of the rules as a whole, and both are wrong.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Dakota

I agree a definition was needed, but the absolute requirement for there to be an attempt to retire a runner (as opposed to, for example, hold a runner), is overly precise, IMO. Having said that, I haven't thought through the implications of a broader definition, either.

Actually, it says "offensive player", but I don't want to be too precise . The need to define "play" came from the constant bickering over the term when used in the LBR. If you make it broader, you are going to have umpires stating that simply turning and looking toward a runner in an attempt to "hold" them on the base would be a play and release all other runners.

I agree, but that is no excuse for using the word "interfere" when definitional interference is not possible.

Where does it say that?

I agree with this in principle, and as I posted earlier, the conclusion I come to is this is a dead ball and a foul ball, even though the BR/B did NOT commit interference as required by the rule.

But there is no BR, so 8.2.F does not apply which, I think, is what some folks are missing here.

However, given the other situations where a runner can forfeit protection by a base running violation, I can readily see how even diligent umpires could come to the conclusion that the BR is out due to interference.

Which I could understand happening once, ONCE!

Or, since interference is not possible, ignore the contact altogether. Either is a reasonable view of the rules as a whole, and both are wrong.

No one is suggesting the contact be ignored especially if intentional. There is always USC available and I wouldn't have a problem with an umpire telling a coach, "There is no INT because it is a foul ball. However, that does not mean your runner doesn't have to avoid contact. Failure to do so in the future may come with penalties."

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by dakota

... But that is no excuse for using the word "interfere" when definitional interference is not possible....

Originally Posted by irishmafia

...where does it say that? ...

1 - Foul Ball - D