Whats the call?

[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

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by Dakota

1 - Foul Ball - D

That's my entire point. Agreed that the use of the word "interferes" is poorly chosen. Accepted; taken alone, it is inappropriate, since it cannot be "Interference".

Disagree that we can't get past that, or that anything else is contradictory. Take your book, replace the words "interferes with" in that one location with "hinders"; then tell me where or why there is any other contradiction, or why you insist on invoking Rule 10.

That's all I've been saying all along; yes, that one word in that definition has not been wordsmithed since the Interference revisions. If we accept that, then I see no other contradictions, need for ASA official interpretations, or general confusion; the answers are already in the book.

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

That's my entire point. Agreed that the use of the word "interferes" is poorly chosen. Accepted; taken alone, it is inappropriate, since it cannot be "Interference".

Disagree that we can't get past that, or that anything else is contradictory. Take your book, replace the words "interferes with" in that one location with "hinders"; then tell me where or why there is any other contradiction, or why you insist on invoking Rule 10.

That's all I've been saying all along; yes, that one word in that definition has not been wordsmithed since the Interference revisions. If we accept that, then I see no other contradictions, need for ASA official interpretations, or general confusion; the answers are already in the book.

If the answers were already clearly in the book, then why has this topic grown to 4 pages? Why have other rule orgs clarified this specific situation?

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

That's my entire point. Agreed that the use of the word "interferes" is poorly chosen. Accepted; taken alone, it is inappropriate, since it cannot be "Interference".

Disagree that we can't get past that, or that anything else is contradictory. Take your book, replace the words "interferes with" in that one location with "hinders"; then tell me where or why there is any other contradiction, or why you insist on invoking Rule 10.

That's all I've been saying all along; yes, that one word in that definition has not been wordsmithed since the Interference revisions. If we accept that, then I see no other contradictions, need for ASA official interpretations, or general confusion; the answers are already in the book.

Well, if you remove the contradiction, then there is no contradiction, is there?

But, even a casual reading of this thread, plus the one from 2 years ago, would seem to argue against your view that this is obvious.

The Rule 10 safety valve is because to get to a correct call here requires bypassing at least 2 "cast in concrete" concepts in the rule book, namely that interference requires a play, and interference requires someone to be called out. Not to mention, of course, that a batter is not even mentioned in any of the rules being applied here. Sure, I would explain it was simply a foul ball and hope to get away with only a brief discussion with the DC, but there is that inconvenient use of the word "interferes" that might be brought up.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Dakota

1 - Foul Ball - D

Which reads:

"While over foul territory, a runner interferes with a defensive player attempting to field a batted ball"

To which I would ask, what runner?

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Which reads:

"While over foul territory, a runner interferes with a defensive player attempting to field a batted ball"

To which I would ask, what runner?

Exactly! But it is the rule being relied on to declare the ball foul...