Interference - Foul fly

[Zepp]

This is a spin-off of a recent thread on Interference.

ASA rules. Runner on 3rd (R3). 2 outs. Batter(B4) hits a lazy fly halfway down the 3rd baseline in foul territory.
R3 is off on the pitch and collides with pitcher who would have caught foul fly with routine effort.
Runner (R3) is out on the interference.
Question is who leads off the next inning?

Looking for rule reference(s) that indicate whether or not B4 "completed her turn at bat" on the foul fly.

If it was less than 2 outs...easy...interference on routine foul or fair fly...both runner and batter are called out and B5 is next to bat

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by Zepp

This is a spin-off of a recent thread on Interference.

ASA rules. Runner on 3rd (R3). 2 outs. Batter(B4) hits a lazy fly halfway down the 3rd baseline in foul territory.
R3 is off on the pitch and collides with pitcher who would have caught foul fly with routine effort.
Runner (R3) is out on the interference.
Question is who leads off the next inning?

Looking for rule reference(s) that indicate whether or not B4 "completed her turn at bat" on the foul fly.

If it was less than 2 outs...easy...interference on routine foul or fair fly...both runner and batter are called out and B5 is next to bat

What is the rule cite for the batter being out in this play?

[Zepp]

With 2 outs, R3 is out on the interference for third out.
Asking about "completing at bat" status on B4

With less than 2 outs, both batter and runner are out (Rule 8-7-L Exception)

[MD Longhorn]

8-7-L has no exception for 2 outs vs any other number of outs. The batter is out on this play, and has completed her at bat. No need to appeal a 4th out - we simply HAVE a fourth out already. The out on the runner is redundant and unnecessary, but it exists anyway.

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

8-7-L has no exception for 2 outs vs any other number of outs. The batter is out on this play, and has completed her at bat. No need to appeal a 4th out - we simply HAVE a fourth out already. The out on the runner is redundant and unnecessary, but it exists anyway.

I would agree with that. The batter has completed her at-bat, and as a result the next batter would be the lead-off batter the next inning.

[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 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.

[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.

[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.