Interference - Foul fly

[Zepp]

You are correct that rule 8-7-7 Exception does not have different criteria based on outs.
But how can you justify calling the batter out, when the runner is guilty of the interference? (Rule 8-7-J-1)

[shipwreck]

That's where ASA and NFHS differ. In NFHS I believe, the runner is out and it is a foul ball for the batter. Not much of a penalty. ASA probably figures the foul ball would be caught. Dave

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by shipwreck

That's where ASA and NFHS differ. In NFHS I believe, the runner is out and it is a foul ball for the batter. Not much of a penalty. ASA probably figures the foul ball would be caught. Dave

Actually, ASA doesn't "figure" anything... it simply says that IF it would have been caught (our judgement), then the batter is out too.

[Big Slick]

Originally Posted by shipwreck

That's where ASA and NFHS differ. In NFHS I believe, the runner is out and it is a foul ball for the batter. Not much of a penalty. ASA probably figures the foul ball would be caught. Dave

The rule change happened after a play at the men's major (sometime between 1999 and 2002). At the time of the interference, it was difficult to determine if the ball was over fair territory or foul territory. Therefore, the rule proposal so we didn't have to judge.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Zepp

You are correct that rule 8-7-7 Exception does not have different criteria based on outs.
But how can you justify calling the batter out, when the runner is guilty of the interference? (Rule 8-7-J-1)

I justify calling the batter out because 8-7-L Exception very clearly states that the batter is out.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by Zepp

You are correct that rule 8-7-7 Exception does not have different criteria based on outs.
But how can you justify calling the batter out, when the runner is guilty of the interference? (Rule 8-7-J-1)

FWIW, the EXCEPTION at the end of 8-7-L actually applies to 8-7-J thru L. So it directly addresses 8-7-J-1.