Whats the call?
 

Batter hits a ground ball dribbler in foul territory down first base line and runs into F3 as she is attempting to field the ball. The ball is first touched in foul territory by F1 who is coming further up the line and fields the ball that F3 missed due to the contact.

So what is your call?

Out.
ASA 8-2-F(1)

Well SRW that's one way to look at it, any other votes?

I agree with SRW as to how I will continue to call it on the field. However, as was pointed out in the other thread where I also said I was going to ignore the book and call it as intended: 8-2-F is interference by the batter runner. 8-2-1 defines when the batter becomes a batter-runner. Hitting a foul ball doesn't qualify.

Nonetheless, in spite of not getting much response there, I believe this is how people are actually calling it. Note, I'd also apply the definition of foul here to the batter in a similar disregard for the book. That is this is a foul ball as soon as the interference occurs so no subsequent action counts just as if any runner had committed the interference. So I'd be sending runners back to TOP not last base touched before the interference. (Not that these would be different in an OP like this.)
________
Medical marihuana dispensory

Just thinking out loud without benefit of scripture and verse of the rulebook......

As PU, I would be interested in how far foul the ball actually is. (i.e.) Is it one of those squibblers that has potential to roll in fair territory but did not because the batter-runner interfered with the play? (Then I think you could definitely have interference - judgment call) or Is it several feet foul where there was no possible way the ball could be fair in your judgment, (Then I would think you would rule a foul ball......)

Now, y'all can all beat me up....

How far in foul territory a ball is makes no difference on the call (unless it's in dead ball territory). A ball dribbling down the line in foul territory is not fair or foul until something MAKES it fair or foul. 8-2-F does not require the ball to be a fair batted ball.

I've got an out on the B/R for INT, and all other runners returning to their previously-touched bases as per 8-2-F.

Except, that you don't have a BR, because he hasn't met any of the terms in 8-1.
________
Sinthia cam

8-1-A states that a batter becomes a batter runner as soon as the batter legally hits a fair ball.

8-2 specifically deals with a batter-runner.

Foul Ball Definition D: A batted ball that while over foul territory, a runner interferes with a defensive player attempting to field a batted ball.

I may be overthinking this...but...since the batter never became a batter-runner (the ball was not fair....ever). By definition, this ball becomes a foul ball the moment interference occurs. Since there's no play to be had on a foul ball, there is no further penalty other than resetting for the next pitch according to the appropriate foul ball rules (fast pitch vs. slow pitch).

I'm going to go with that this would be a foul ball, reset and play on.

I think you're both overthinking it. The ball, up until the moment of INT, was neither fair nor foul.

I'll draw another parallel. Batter hits a pop fly ball that appears that it will land 3' foul of 1B. F3 goes to catch it easily, but the BR screams as the ball is about to reach F3's glove. F3 drops the ball.

You're telling me that because the ball was in foul territory that you'll call it foul?

How does a ball dribble down the line in foul territory?

If the batter fouls one off in the dirt and the catcher reaches down on the ground to field the foul ball in the dirt and the batter haphazardly gets in her way, are you going to rule INT at that point?

Okay, Mr. Picky-Pants. Dribbling near the line.

Hell no. And it's called survival.

I don't think that is remotely parallel, since in your situation, the ball could be caught to retire the batter. In the OP, the ball was on the ground in foul territory when it was first contacted by the defense. The B/R cannot be retired in this situation.

I have a foul ball.

ASA 8.2.F.1
Batter-Runner is out:

When the batter-runner interferes with:
1. a fielder attempting to field a batted ball.


I think the problem is in that because the batter contacted the ball with the bat, they are a batter-runner. Not entirely true. The definition of a batter-runner is: A player who has completed a turn at bat but has not yet been put out or reached first base. 8.1.A states: The batter becomes a batter-runner: as soon as the batter legally hits a fair ball.

Since the ball is not in fair territory, the batter never completed the time at bat, nor did the batter become a batter-runner.

Just my $.02.

Conundrum.

If you rule INT, the ball is foul since it is dead upon the INT call, touched or not.

You cannot have INT on a foul ball since there is no play or out to be made on any foul ball.

A 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.

How about if the ball was 'on the line' (i.e. in fair territory) at the time of contact between players and then rolled foul? As in the OP, the ball is neither fair nor foul at that moment.

Again, the ball is either fair or foul based upon its location at the time of the INT call, so you cannot have both INT and consideration for the position of the ball after that moment.

But, for there to be interference, there has to be a play. If the ball is foul (by definition), there is no play and therefore no intereference...

The definition of a batter-runner has not been met in the OP, so we can't rule interference by a batter-runner, since we don't have a batter-runner.

http://forum.officiating.com/softbal...nce-maybe.html

http://forum.officiating.com/softbal...erference.html

Folks, we've been here at least twice before. Same arguments.

I luv it when we have two different rules - about the same subject - which give different results.

The OP is about a batter-runner interferring with a fielder attempting to field a batted ball. 8.2.F-1 is very clear; you have interference.

However, suppose the ball is outside the 3rd base line and R1 contacts F5 attempting to field the ball. Now we switch to runner rules. 8.7.J-1 rules for interferring with a batted fair ball or a foul fly ball. It is not a fair ball, and not a fly foul ball. No call.

I brought this to the attention of NFHS three years ago and they solved it with their "initial play" rule (attempting to field a fair batted ball). So whether B-R or Runner, its only interferrence on a fair batted ball.

WMB

Wow!
 

What a conondrum.

I don't see how you can get an out here since the ball is not fair. Once the b/r runs into the defender attempting to field the ball over foul territory, it can only be a foul ball.

No BR. No play as the ball is foul. No interference.

Foul ball.

Foul Ball for all the reasons stated previous. You guys all beat me to the punch!

My comment was specific to the BR or not aspect. There is a play when a fielder fields a batted ball while foul to prevent it from going fair, thereby eliminating any advance by BR or R.

My INT call is based on the premise ""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".

I can't think of a code in which the OP would not be a foul ball. (Just to be sure, I'm checking with the YSISF commissioner for their interpretation.)

However, ASA does go its own way on certain plays in the same vein. For example, a fielder can throw his glove at and hit a ball that is a few inches on the foul side of the line and apparently going to roll fair, and it's simply a foul ball. Similarly, a runner can deliberately kick such a roller and render it foul. Other codes (black-and-white rule in NCAA softball, interpretation in OBR) have violations on those plays.

But I don't think that ASA takes the "future" into account—whether the ball had a chance to become fair or actually becomes fair. In any case, the roller in the OP did not have such a chance.

Sure they do. They ignore assumptions. :rolleyes:

Well Cecil some concluded that the runner becomes a BR as soon as they hit the ball, I for one do not agree with that statement and this post was an attempt to bring that point out once again. As others have stated they can't be a BR until they completed their turn at bat, and hitting a foul ball does not do that....so there is no INT in this play just a foul ball. I argue that the rules as they are worded is that the batter remains a batter until they hit a fair ball. So if the ball is foul (baring any USC) they go back to bat, and all their actions are considered that of a batter. Once it is determined fair then all their actions from the time they hit it are considered actions of a batter-runner. BUT they have to complete their turn at bat to become a batter-runner....again a foul ball does not do that. So if they have not satisified one of the sections of rule 8 section 1 then they are still a batter.

Mike,
Just trying to understand your position. So once there was contact you would kill the play? Say "Dead Ball, Foul Ball"? When asked you killed it due to the contact but the ball was in foul territory at the time so it is a foul ball batter bat on?

So, I think we've all agreed that the rulebook leaves something to be desired but you all are changing what seems to me the wrong piece.

Three rules:

1. A Runner/Batter-Runner who interferes with a play on the ball while the ball is foul/fair makes the ball immediately foul/fair.

2. A batter does not become a batter runner until hitting a fair ball. (Plus other presently irrelevant stuff.)

3. Interference by the batter-runner requires a batted ball and by the runners requires a fair ball or fly foul ball. And on the batter it's a whole different ball game.

So in this situation, I'd let parts of three go long before I'd consider letting any of part 1 go.
I'm presently unconvinced by anyone that in this situation the correct thing to do is not call an out for interference and a foul ball. What am I missing?
________
Live Sex

Hello all,
Great situation. I am at work with no rule book, but i did not see mentioned that a batter can interfere with a catcher making a play on a runner, so can we expand that to the batter interfering with a fielder making a play on the ball, be it fair or foul? Just asking.

What play can be made with a foul ball?

:)

My "position" is that IF the umpire kills the play due to INT, the ball is foul at that point if over foul territory. Since I don't believe you can have INT based on a presumption that a ball "could" have evolved into a fair ball if allowed to continue to roll/bounce, I would have nothing on this play unless the R/BR did something unsportsmanlike and then there would be an ejection, but on INT.

A perfect example would be a play where a fielder throws a glove and contacts a ball over foul territory. Since it is a foul ball by definition, there cannot be a ruling based upon contacting a ball with detached equipment since that rule requires it to be a fair batted ball.

Again that is what I am struggling with why do I kill the play when there is contact? if the ball is in foul territory we have no INT. So killing it for INT is not really a valid thing to do. I'm just thinking here not argueing it just seems wierd to me to kill the play for INT, when I kill the play the balls location determines whether it is fair or foul at that point, so the ball is foul so it is just a foul ball so the INT is removed. I can follow that logic and the rule base that would get me there. But I am foggy as to the proper mechanics to perform this action on the field.

Mike linked to a discussion of a nearly identical situation above somewhere. This discussion was held about 2 years ago. Below I'm relying heavily on a reply I posted in that other discussion.

The definitions support the call of interference, assuming attempting to field a batted ball (not necessarily fair) can be construed as attempting to make a play. What the rules do not support is declaring the batter/batter-runner out.

The RS says two things that may pertain to this discussion:

and

This is obviously a hole in the rules. The umpire must make a call of some kind or ignore the contact.

Rule 10 allows the umpire to make a reasonable call, but he should not make up a new rule out of whole cloth.

If the runner had contacted the ball instead of the fielder, it would have been a foul ball.

If the fielder had been successful in fielding the ball while still in foul territory, it would have been a foul ball.

The fielder was not given the opportunity to field the ball while in the playing field.

Stringing all of that together, I am still with the dead ball on the interference, no one out since the ball was foul. Rule 10.

Thanks Tom,
I can live with that!! :D That makes sense to me and I feel like it is sellable (is that a word?)

looking a BR only here...
 

I'm with a couple of you thinking I had this, but the more I read, the cloudier it gets.

One thing a recall from the National Umpire School training last March: if interference is called, there has to be an out somewhere, possibly two given certain conditions.

A foul popup on which F1, F2, or F3 is hindered by the batter [becoming a batter-runner because no one should be waiting for the ball to land] should be called interference.

I think the issue is a ground ball that is rolling along the 1B line.

I know:
If the BR contacts the ball in fair territory, the BR is out;
if the BR contacts the ball in foul territory [accidentally or intentionally], the ball is ruled foul.

There was a situation posted several back where the BR and F1 collided while the ball was currently in foul territory and without being touched, and after BR reached 1B rolled back and settled in fair territory.

I guess I'm with several that wonder if that's interference. I also wonder if it might be obstruction since F1 was in the basepath without the ball in her possession.

In a similar but slightly different twist, batter hits a chopper off home plate that bounces very high down the 1B line. F3 is straddling the base line waiting for the ball to come down. Before she gets possession, the BR runs into her causing F3 to misplay the ball. F3 was attempting to make a play on a ground ball, and according to rule, if it's a fair ball it's a play, but if it's a foul ball, there can be no play. So after contact, if PU determines the ball was over foul territory, no play, incidental contact, foul ball, batter returns. But if PU determines ball was over fair territory, obstruction, interference, or nothing?

I've always been of the opinion that the BR must go around the fielder attempting to make a play [without going down that mink-lined definitional rathole]. Unless the fielder has the ball in her possession, and then the BR could be called out for running outside the basepath.

Ted

My understanding of a play involves the opportunity to retire a batter, batter-runner, or runner. This can't happen when the ball is rolling in foul territory.

Ignoring the contact and calling the ball foul once F1 touched it foul seems to be the only book-supported option.

I think I would kill the ball as soon as the contact was made with a fielder attempting to field a batter ball. If the ball was foul at that moment, I would rule a foul ball. If asked by a coach I would have to say "Coach I screwed up I killed the ball out of habit when I saw the contact, the ball was in foul territory so it stays foul since I killed the play, so since it is foul there was no play to interfere with so it's just a foul ball"

OK, as I said, based on what I remember from prior discussions.

Also, remember I also postulated "A batted ball in flight or dribbling near the line or wherever else is not foul until it meets one of the foul ball criteria", which has had no discussion.

But it can if the ball crosses the line before the fielder contacts it. A fielder has a right to field the batted ball unhindered.

How is ignoring the contact supported by the book? Are you relying on the head-of-a-pin argument that the offensive player is still just a batter? Since we have a live batted ball at the time of the contact, and the ball has not yet been declared fair or foul, your argument is this gives the ephemeral batter/batter-runner free reign to plow over the fielder?

It would only be obstruction if you were ruling that a different fielder was the one who had the play on the ball. As long as F1 is the fielder making the play on the batted ball, she cannot commit obstruction.

I wouldn't take a mea culpa for a problem with the rule book.

A batted ball in flight is different there is a chance to get INT on that as there is a chance to catch it for an out (fits into the defination of a play) so you can interfere with it.

On a dribbler near the line I think the thought is that once there is contact you stop the play and rule where the ball is at the moment of contact if it is fair you have INT, if it is foul just a foul ball.

Well I am struggling with this. If I read the book you have to be a batter-runner to commit INT with a batted ball, and the ball has to be fair in order to become a batter-runner. So we do have a chicken and egg situation here. I don't know where in the rules it tells me to stop the play with contact when the ball is in foul territory, it can't be for INT since there has to be a fair ball to be a BR. So I'm not relying on it, but I am stuck reading the book and wondering if the batter is not still a batter until the ball is ruled fair as I read the book.

And we still have the USC to prevent the batter from plowing into the fielder.

But the definition of a foul ball says that when interference occurs while the ball is foul then it's a foul ball. For that to mean anything, you have to have a situation where a foul ball can be interfered with.
A foul fly ball comes to mind, but if you have interference with a foul fly ball you don't immediately call the ball foul. You call it dead for interference and call it foul by implication. You don't say just because it's foul, I have no interference.
Now, I'm not sure I remember the foul interference rule. If I had my book I'd look this up, but what do you do with the batter there? Interference by R1 at 3rd with a foul fly ball results in R1 being out, no? And if so, then B2 now has an extra strike. Whereas interference with R1 at 3rd on a fair fly ball results in the B2 becoming R2.
________
Glass Weed Pipe

Nit picking, but there is no such thing as a batted ball in flight as it pertains to ASA rules. By definition, a ball in flight is a fly ball; A batted ball must land somewhere which means it is no longer in flight.

You cannot have a foul, fly ball though the definition makes that reference A fly ball does not meet the definition of a foul ball.

If there is INT on a fly ball over foul territory, the ball IS dead and declared foul by rule.

The batter is also ruled out. Rule 8.7.J.1 w/NOTE and EXCEPTION

One thing I think we can all agree on is the rule book has issues with the scenario. Among them are:

o By definition, a play is an attempt to retire a runner or BR
o There must be a play for there to be interference
o If the call is interference, somebody is declared out
o By definition, interference with the fielder while the ball is in foul territory is a foul ball.
o A batter cannot commit interference on a batted ball, but our offender here is now a batter (again, still, who cares...)
o There is no play (by the definition of a play) on a ground ball in foul territory.

Make the call and explain it is the best we can do. The act of interference kills the ball and defines it as a foul ball, which defines the offensive player as a batter, which negates the expected out for the interference call.

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.

Not if the play is killed for an unsubstantiated interference ruling.

Except for a stretch of Rule 10, how does it support killing the play?

Nope.

My piont, exactly.

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

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 <i>fair</i> 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.

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.

:eek: ;) :D

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

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.

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...

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

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

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. ;)

coaching strategy?
 

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

sigh.... ok my 2 pennies... the batted ball isnt foul till its touched or settles in foul territory or passes a base in foul territory... by that measure the interference occurred during a live "not yet foul" batted ball thereby negating the touch by F1 to make it foul..... BR is out for interference and runners (if any) go back. (no dbl play consideration as in my judgement based on F1 touching it in foul territory, there would be no second play chance)
hope this on a test this year.... its gonna be 50/50.

BTW: this was a very enjoyable topic to try and cipher... .the rule books suck on this matter.

Problem is, the horse is not dead...

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.

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

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

Already referenced in Post #49 of this thread.

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

#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"

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 :rolleyes:. 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.

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.

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

Actually, it says "offensive player", but I don't want to be too precise :cool:. 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.

Where does it say that?

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

Which I could understand happening once, ONCE!

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."

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.

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?

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.

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? :D

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

Guys, if you're the plate ump and DON'T call interference on that play you are in for a world of grief fromthe defensive manager.
Too many times things are "over thought"...it's interference plain and simple.

Don't care about the grief, but... where's the play?

Uhhh, no. It is neither plain, simple or interference. And if grief is your concern over a good call.......

Talk about beating a dead horse!!

Ya think?

http://coreygilmore.com/wp-content/u...dead_horse.jpg

I can't figure out to put those pics in there or I would. That one you have is better than mine anyway! LOL

It's the little "mountain" button. Two spaces to the right of the link with the red X through it.

Defensive coach discussion is easy "Coach that was a foul ball, can't have interference with a foul ball" not much to grieve over there.


BUT, I ask you what are you going to say to the offensive manager when he asks:
Coach: Blue was the ball in foul territory when the contact was made?
You: Yes (cause it was)
Coach: Then that is a foul ball you can't call my runner out on a foul ball.

Now we have a protestable situation misinterp of the rules. The defensive manager could never get you to a protest, at least not one that you would lose in this situation. Check all the rules references given in this thread to make yourself feel better that the by rule call is a foul ball.

I am guessing that you didn't read all seventy some odd posts in this thread before you made this post... :rolleyes:

It's taken 85+ posts to finally convince me that my original interpretation of this scenario is wrong.

I've now got a foul ball in the OP.

Are you sure about that? :eek:

Here we go again.....:cool:

Don't ya hate it when the season's over and there's nothing new to post about? :cool:

Yep.

So, I think the case is fairly convincing as well because in the OP there is no attempt to make a play. What about in the case where the ball is slightly foul, headed fair and the fielder is trying to play it in fair territory? Then you did meet the definition of a play, no?
________
Colorado medical marijuana dispensaries

It is either foul or it isn't. If it is foul, that is what it is. Period. No play can be made with a foul ball.

No play can be made with a "grounded" foul ball.

Right? Or is that implied?

Sure it can. Terrible bunt hits a rock in foul territory and is now flying back toward the catcher. Batter had given up on it so she is standing in the box and the catcher has moved forward. Realizing the ball is about to go fair the catcher positions to make the catch and tag. That is a play. The batter runs through the catcher. I've met the definitions of interference have I not?
________
Lenya

Depends... Was the ball fair when the catcher first touched it? If so, then yes. If not, then no. The ball is foul, and no play can be made.

No, it can't. And, assuming the catcher first touched the ball in fair territory, that is a fair ball. Don't try to predict the future (unless you are making base awards after an obstruction call, that is...;))

Why? Do you still think it may have been too close to the line? ;):D

I know the rule book uses the phrase "foul fly ball" or similar wording, but in reality there is no such thing. A fly ball is neither fair nor foul until something happens to define its status. A "caught foul fly" is actually a caught fly ball in foul territory, and it is live, and for all rules intents and purposes, a fair ball.

A foul ball has had its status defined - it is foul.

Or the location of the ball when the B/BR ran through the catcher. If over foul territory........