What does "batting" have to do with this?

Ya know, this is the type of **** that screws things up and causes unnecessary confusion.

Folks, you need to stay on point. ASA has addressed this at clinics. Just as a defender can THROW a glove and hit a batted ball in foul territory to keep it from becoming fair, an offensive player may also do the same thing.

If the FED truly allows this to be ruled an out, doesn't that contradict the logic they used for a pitched ball in the batter's box ruling? :rolleyes::D

But unless I'm wrong, ASA is alone on their viewpoint. FED and NCAA both penalize the batter-runner with an out if she contacts a batted ball in foul territory that is judged that it might go fair. Not sure of other sanctioning softball organizations. And most, if not all, baseball organizations are the same.

So what logic ASA used to come up with this position is a mystery. Why would a batter or runner want to intentionally contact a foul ball that might go fair other than to prevent an out? Isn't that why the interference rule exists?

ASA penalizes a batter for unintentionally contacting a loose ball while she runs to first after an uncaught third strike, but they don't penalize a batter for intentionally contacting a batted ball that is foul but might go fair. I'm just not tracking...

Why would a defensive player want to intentionally contact a foul ball that might go fair other than to prevent a run from scoring or to prevent the batter-runner from obtaining first base. Isn't that one reason why the obstruction rule exists?

Wow, and I thought ASA's logic was suspect...:rolleyes:

No mystery. A batted ball touched on or over foul territory prior to passing 1st or 3rd base is a foul ball. Nothing hard to figure out here, it is the same in all games.

Is the defender not permitted to do the same thing? Nothing new here.

Here we go again. You are refering to a pitched ball that was mishandled, though I agree this form of INT should be required to be INT. To the point that I submitted a rule change that was rejected. However, we are referring to an untouched batted ball thats status has yet to be determined, by rule.

Are you suggesting that we now forbid any player from touching any batted ball along the line prior to reaching the base because it may or may not go fair or foul?

No when it comes to the defense. Obviously, they're out their to field, and touching a ball that's foul but might become fair is a perfectly acceptable tactic.

But the offense has no business touching a batted ball to gain some sort of benefit. Would we allow the base coach to go up to a batted ball and touch it before it goes fair if there's that possibility? Or a runner on third base? What about an on-deck batter?

The offense is not allowed to touch a batted fly ball in foul territory that may be caught. They are taking away the defense's opportunity to field the ball for an out. Isn't that what the offense is doing on a ground ball that is in foul territory but may go fair? If the bases are loaded with two outs, the batter hits a dribbler up the third base line in foul territory that she feels won't go fair so she's staying at the plate, and R1 sees F5 waiting for the ball to roll fair so she can make a play on the batter at first, is it perfectly acceptable for R1 to run down and grab the ball before it goes fair?

Since ASA seems to be the only sanctioning body to allow it, I'm simply questioning why. No other organization that I'm aware of gives the offense free will to touch a batted ball.

No offense meant, but yeah - I would suggest that we now forbid any OFFENSIVE player from touching a batted ball on purpose --- EVER. Kinda shocked you're defending this view.

Easy there, Mike. I'm not causing unnecessary confusion I'm just trying to make sure I understand. There's lots of stuff in rule 7 that applies after the ball is hit.
7-6-K for example definitely applies to hitting the ball a second time.
And asking that question wasn't going to cloud things up for anybody, it was just an honest question. Not everybody is a troll looking to stir things up.

Again, rule 7 involves BATTING. This has nothing to do with BATTING or the BATTER. 7-6-K has to do with the BATTER hitting a FAIR batted ball with the bat a second time. That is not even remotely part of the discussion here. Trying to fit it in is what causes confusion.

But let's look at that situation. What happens if the batter hits a ball over foul territory a second time? It's a FOUL ball, the exact same result as the OP.

So a batted ball that the ODB picks up and returns to the defense should result in an out. And heaven forbid the base coach grab a bounding ball in foul territory. That should be an out, too? After all, the ball COULD go fair, right?

It isn't just my position, but ASA's.

And just why should the defense be allowed to manipulate the ball's status if the offense cannot?

I recognize what ASA's position IS (and on the extremely off chance that this actually happens in my game, I'll call it appropriately). We're talking about what it SHOULD be. Let's not go ad absurdum here... but yes - if the ODB or a coach grabs a ball that is likely to roll fair, hell yes the batter should be out. I know she's not in ASA, but defending this is rather silly, and implying that the offense and defense should have equal opportunity to "manipulate the status of the ball" is just as silly.

(NO ONE is saying that a bounder down the line that the base coach catches should be an out --- and I think you know that.)

How are you going to judge that? How do you it isn't likely to go further foul? I don't even want to imagine all the BS umpires will get there.

I don't know. Why not? Why should only the defense have the option of not letting the ball take it's course? How about a runner on 3B grabbing a ball over foul territory? Does NCAA & NFHS address that? And I'm asking, don't know.

Actually, that is exactly what you suggested.

How is this not the OP? B1 hits the ball, then she hits the fair batted ball with the bat a second time. And yes it makes it a foul ball. I understand the ruling. My point in my response is that rule 7 doesn't end when the ball is contacted by the bat. Some things in it stop applying. But not all of them (which 7-6-K was a fantastic example).

To start, where do you see the word "bat" or any inference to the bat being used a second time in the OP? ;)

Secondly, 7.6.K clearly references a fair ball over fair territory. The OP clearly references a foul ball over foul territory.

In all fairness Mike, I did mean she hit the ball again with the bat. But it doesn't matter. ASA says this is a foul ball. FED has it as an out if the umpire judges it could go fair.

Mbcrowder, I understand your reasoning. But I believe Mike is right on this one (I can't believe I just said that! LOL. Just teasing Mike). ;) It opens up a can of worms. The purpose of any rule set is to establish a level playing field. And we have that with both teams able to touch a ball in foul territory.

If you don't like the offense having the ability to manipulate the status of the ball, shouldn't you be arguing just as strongly for removing the rule that allows the defense to touch the ball before it goes fair? If the offense can't manipulate the status shouldn't we deny the defense the same opportunity?

Devil's advocate position (meaning I like the ASA rule, but...): It is the responsibility of the defense to field a batted ball, any batted ball. It is the responsibility of the offense to run the bases and avoid the batted ball.

If the batter wants the batted ball to go foul, hit it foul!