Here's one for you

rwest · #1 (**permalink**) Mon Jul 30, 2012, 08:00am

Here's the scenario.

R1 on 1B. B2 hits a pop fly in foul territory near third base. R1 thinking there are two outs advances to 2nd. The coach realizing there is only 1 out interferes with F5's attempt to catch the ball.

What do you have in ASA?
What do you have in FED?

CecilOne · #2 (**permalink**) Mon Jul 30, 2012, 08:27am

Quote:

Originally Posted by rwest

Here's the scenario.

R1 on 1B. B2 hits a pop fly in foul territory near third base. R1 thinking there are two outs advances to 2nd. The coach realizing there is only 1 out interferes with F5's attempt to catch the ball.

What do you have in ASA?
What do you have in FED?

Are you asking if a coach can be called for INT on a double play, like a retired runner?
I doubt if there is any such wording in the book, but definitely UC.

RadioBlue · #3 (**permalink**) Mon Jul 30, 2012, 08:34am

FED ruling:

3-5-5 Pen.

R1 is out. Foul ball. Batter remains at bat.

Wow ... the penalty doesn't fit the crime here. Seems like you should be able to get two outs here.

rwest · #4 (**permalink**) Mon Jul 30, 2012, 08:36am

Quote:

Originally Posted by RadioBlue

FED ruling:

3-5-5 Pen.

R1 is out. Foul ball. Batter remains at bat.

Wow ... the penalty doesn't fit the crime here. Seems like you should be able to get two outs here.

Look at 7-4-12 Penalty.

RadioBlue · #5 (**permalink**) Mon Jul 30, 2012, 09:20am

Whoops ... you're right. 3-5-5 specifically excludes a base coach. 3-5-6 is the applicable rule in FED. You've got two outs here which makes a whole lot more sense to me.

Quote:

ART. 6 . . . If any offensive team member, other than a runner or retired runner,
interferes with a batted fair ball or foul fly ball, the batter is declared out. If,
in the judgment of the umpire, the interference prevented a possible double play,
the batter and runner closest to home shall be declared out.
PENALTY: (Art. 6) The ball is dead immediately and the batter and runner may
be out. (8-6-16,17,19; 7-4-12)

rwest · #6 (**permalink**) Mon Jul 30, 2012, 09:22am

Quote:

Originally Posted by CecilOne

Are you asking if a coach can be called for INT on a double play, like a retired runner?
I doubt if there is any such wording in the book, but definitely UC.

Check FED rule book 7-4-12. You can get a DP on this. But not in ASA.

CecilOne · #7 (**permalink**) Mon Jul 30, 2012, 11:03am

Quote:

Originally Posted by rwest

Check FED rule book 7-4-12. You can get a DP on this. But not in ASA.

My focus is entirely ASA right now, National this week and no HS since May.
I read RADIO's post.

What do think of UC in either rules?

Manny A · #8 (**permalink**) Wed Aug 01, 2012, 11:04am

Quote:

Originally Posted by rwest

Check FED rule book 7-4-12. You can get a DP on this. But not in ASA.

What about ASA 7.6.I and 8.7.O? Which one do you use? Is it an either/or situation, or can you combine the two if you feel the base coach did something intentional?

7.6.I: [The batter is out] When members of the team at bat, including those in the team area, other than runners interfere with a player attempting to field a fair or foul fly ball.

8.7.O: [The runner is out] When a coach intentionally interferes with a batted or thrown ball, or interferes with the defensive team’s opportunity to make a play on another runner.

I'm confused...

rwest · #9 (**permalink**) Mon Aug 06, 2012, 07:43am

Quote:

Originally Posted by CecilOne

My focus is entirely ASA right now, National this week and no HS since May.
I read RADIO's post.

What do think of UC in either rules?

I believe we should only use UC when there is not a more specific rule that covers the particular play. If there is a rule that is exactly on point, we need to use this rule and I believe we have that in this case. I wouldn't use UC.

MD Longhorn · #10 (**permalink**) Mon Aug 06, 2012, 08:27am

I have 2 outs here - ASA rules posted above.

Manny A · #11 (**permalink**) Mon Aug 06, 2012, 10:56am

Quote:

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

I have 2 outs here - ASA rules posted above.

I assume you're referring to the two rules I mentioned in my post above. I just don't know if it's appropriate to bunch two different rules together like that to gain two outs.

Suppose it was the on-deck batter and not the third base coach that intentionally interfered with the foul fly. You can obviously use ASA 7-6-I to rule the batter out. But I cannot find any rule that penalizes the on-deck batter for purposely preventing a DP, and rule the runner out as well.

So if it sounds like ASA doesn't support calling a DP should an on-deck batter (or other offensive player, for that matter) interfere here, can we hold the base coach to a different standard?

IRISHMAFIA · #12 (**permalink**) Mon Aug 06, 2012, 11:34am

Quote:

Originally Posted by rwest

I believe we should only use UC when there is not a more specific rule that covers the particular play. If there is a rule that is exactly on point, we need to use this rule and I believe we have that in this case. I wouldn't use UC.

Disagree. An UC has nothing to do with any number of outs which may be ruled, but the conduct of the individual whether the result of the act is covered by a rule or not.

I would have to see how the coach interfered. If did anything to initiate physical contact with F5, that coach is done, period.

And before you start, it is nothing at all like two participating players making contact, as the coach has zero excuse for moving toward a fielder.

MD Longhorn · #13 (**permalink**) Mon Aug 06, 2012, 01:14pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manny A

I assume you're referring to the two rules I mentioned in my post above. I just don't know if it's appropriate to bunch two different rules together like that to gain two outs.

I see your point under normal circumstances, but in the case posted, the interference was with BOTH getting the batter out and making a play on the runner. This was a play that, had there been no interference, 2 outs would have been likely, and the offense interfered intentionally to prevent a double play. It is against everything that the interference rules are put into place to prevent, to allow the offense to benefit from doing something that is clearly against the rules.

Quote:

Suppose it was the on-deck batter and not the third base coach that intentionally interfered with the foul fly. You can obviously use ASA 7-6-I to rule the batter out. But I cannot find any rule that penalizes the on-deck batter for purposely preventing a DP, and rule the runner out as well.

Again, I see your point. But what I said above still stands. There is every indication that the rules as written intend to prevent the offense from intentionally preventing a double play. I don't think it's a stretch to use rule 10 here. Clearly, this eventuality is not specifically written into the rulebook, and I absolutely hate falling back on Rule 10 - but not ruling 2 outs in this case is against everything that all of the interference rules are about.

Manny A · #14 (**permalink**) Mon Aug 06, 2012, 02:17pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

There is every indication that the rules as written intend to prevent the offense from intentionally preventing a double play.

Trust me, I agree with you. That is why I brought up using the two rules in the first place when rwest said you can't have a DP under ASA.

I just have a hard time justifying to myself that if I can't use one or the other to rule a DP whenever any offensive team member blatantly prevents a fielder from catching a foul ball, I can just combine the two of them. And even then, that really only covers a base coach.

Tex · #15 (**permalink**) Tue Aug 07, 2012, 06:06pm

Fed only,
Interference on a Foul Fly by Runner or Coach

Interference by runner: (8-6-10) Runner is out, strike to batter, batter still bats unless bunting on 3rd strike.

Interference by coach: (3-5-6) Batter is out, runner(s) return. If the interference prevented a possible double play, both the batter and the runner closest home is also out.