Whats the call?

[DaveASA/FED]

Originally Posted by youngump

No, the catcher was in fair ground and the ball was travelling in the air toward the catchers glove. In what way is this not a play? It is an attempt by a fielder to retire an offensive player.
As for predicting the future, you do it all the time in calling interference. Ball hit toward F5. Runner coming hard from 2nd to 3rd runs in to F5. No one covering third. Out for interference because I saw that in the future the 3rd baseman was making a tag or throwing to first.

As others have said, you rule on what happened when it happened. At the point of contact you have to judge was the ball fair or foul. If Fair we get INT cause you can be attempting to retire an offensive player (thus making a play) if foul then it is just a foul ball, no chance to make a play (can't get an out on a foul ball) so no chance for INT.

In your other case as others have said, at the time of the contact the ball is in fair territory so it is ruled a fair ball and the INT is enforced. And also as stated the out is not for what might happen is it for what did happen. Heck in your case the same could happen, ball could hit rock or bad spot in field and roll foul before it was ever touched....BUT in that case the ball was in fair territory when you stop action for the INT, so it is ruled fair and the INT enforced regardless of where the ball went after the contact.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by DaveASA/FED

As others have said, you rule on what happened when it happened. At the point of contact you have to judge was the ball fair or foul. If Fair we get INT cause you can be attempting to retire an offensive player (thus making a play) if foul then it is just a foul ball, no chance to make a play (can't get an out on a foul ball) so no chance for INT.

In your other case as others have said, at the time of the contact the ball is in fair territory so it is ruled a fair ball and the INT is enforced. And also as stated the out is not for what might happen is it for what did happen. Heck in your case the same could happen, ball could hit rock or bad spot in field and roll foul before it was ever touched....BUT in that case the ball was in fair territory when you stop action for the INT, so it is ruled fair and the INT enforced regardless of where the ball went after the contact.

No, in my case the ball was foul at the time of the hindrance. The fielder was attempting to field a live ball. It became dead because of the interference and at that point it couldn't be played. There are other pathological situations where you could have interference where you have to assume the ball wasn't going to be dead before it got to the fielder. For example a fly ball where the fielder is shoved out of the way followed by a massive wind blowing it out of play. He wasn't actually making a play because he had no opportunity to retire the runner. However, I've got a dead ball at the time of interference unless I never believed he had a play. I'm predicting the future.

Notwithstanding, I'm mildly but slightly convinced that the intent of the rule here is to make interference while the ball is foul a legal way to avoid being put out. Were I on the rules committee, it'd be changing next year. But that's not going to happen. The OP I am strongly convinced and my variant very mildly.
________
HOW TO ROLL BLUNTS

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by youngump

No, in my case the ball was foul at the time of the hindrance. The fielder was attempting to field a live ball. It became dead because of the interference and at that point it couldn't be played. There are other pathological situations where you could have interference where you have to assume the ball wasn't going to be dead before it got to the fielder. For example a fly ball where the fielder is shoved out of the way followed by a massive wind blowing it out of play. He wasn't actually making a play because he had no opportunity to retire the runner. However, I've got a dead ball at the time of interference unless I never believed he had a play. I'm predicting the future.

Notwithstanding, I'm mildly but slightly convinced that the intent of the rule here is to make interference while the ball is foul a legal way to avoid being put out. Were I on the rules committee, it'd be changing next year. But that's not going to happen. The OP I am strongly convinced and my variant very mildly.

You can come up with all kinds of bizarre woulda coulda's but in your fly ball example, there is a specific rules that addresses that (re: 7-6-I, 8-7-J-1), and you are calling the situation as it is at the time you call it... it is a foul fly ball and the fielder is attempting to field it. That's it. No Nostradamus required.

The OP should be a simple case of a definitional foul ball, but ASA has confused the rule by saying "runner" and "interferes with". Replace that with "offensive player" and "hinders" and this whole thread goes away.

[JefferMC]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Replace that with "offensive player" and "hinders" and this whole thread goes away.

But then we'd have had nothing else to comment about other than "Umpire" Josh.

[shipwreck]

This thread has been kinda like the Eveready rabbit, in that it "keeps going and going" Aren't there any fresh subjects to bring up? Dave

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by shipwreck

This thread has been kinda like the Eveready rabbit, in that it "keeps going and going" Aren't there any fresh subjects to bring up? Dave

Well, we could talk about what other "runner" rules are routinely applied to batter-runners, or when, exactly, does a batter become a batter-runner... wait, we've talked about that last one...

[Skahtboi]

So...how long does anyone think Sean Avery would last playing SP softball???