Rule Interpretations

[Dakota]

Originally posted by WestMichBlue
OK - now explain POE 32 A.3.b "It is interference if the batted ball ricochets off one diffensive (sic) player and any player has the opportunity to make an out." Doesn't say "intentional."

POE 32 A-3 starts out with "Intentionally interfering ... (although, to be sure, ASA seems to have mixed the context here between batted and thrown balls, so it is not entirely clear that a) thru e) are really subparagraphs of 3.) Even so, POE's will provide further clarification to a rule, they do not contradict the rule, and the rule 8-7J.5 says "Intentionally ... "

Now, in this kind of situation, the way I interpret the rule is with a somewhat broad definition of "intentional." If the deflected ball and/or the fielder chasing it give the runner little or no chance to avoid mucking up the play (by contact or not), then the runner would have to do something obvious, such as slap at the ball or something. OTOH, if the delfection happened 30 feet in front of the runner, and yet she continued to plow into the middle of the attempt to field the ball, then I would consider that "intentional."

In my game I did not believe F6 could get that runner at first on the deflected ball, so no interference. But you are saying "forget that judgement, no interference because interference was not deliberate."

Well, I didn't exactly say that, it is just that, the way I read the rule, intent had to be there and the opportunity for an out has to be there - both.

Lets change the play. Batted ball ricochets off the pitcher in the air towards F4. As she reached out to catch the ball (which would be a legal out) her hand is hit by the runner from 1B. Not intentional. What was an easy out is now a missed ball and both runners are safe. Is that what the rules makers want?WMB

Depends (IMO) on whether the runner had time to stay out of the way, but continued on anyway, or whether the whole thing happend right on top of the runner, giving her no chance (or in between).