Rule question

[AtlUmpSteve]

You do realize the topic is "Spectator Interference", right?? No, they don't mean just the defense, because the offense could be THE offended team. The rule applies to a spectator interfering with live play on the field; ANY live play, not just one where the defense is kept from making a catch.

But it does say THE ..... TEAM; and that is singular. So, until the rule is interpreted differently by the only person that can, only one or the other can be THE offended team.

In the case of preventing a fielder from making a catch, THE offended team is the defense. In the case of touching a live ball when the defense had no play, THE offended team is the offense.

I believe KR is fond of saying you need to fit the play ruling to the rule, don't keep trying to fit the rule to the play.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

You do realize the topic is "Spectator Interference", right?? No, they don't mean just the defense, because the offense could be THE offended team. The rule applies to a spectator interfering with live play on the field; ANY live play, not just one where the defense is kept from making a catch.

But it does say THE ..... TEAM; and that is singular. So, until the rule is interpreted differently by the only person that can, only one or the other can be THE offended team.

In the case of preventing a fielder from making a catch, THE offended team is the defense. In the case of touching a live ball when the defense had no play, THE offended team is the offense...

So, by that logic, the last sentence of ASA Rule 8-7-P-NOTE means nothing at all.

We cannot treat the ASA Rule Book as inerrant holy writ.

Assigning high precision on the use of "the" in a rule book that is rampant with the use of "their" and similar words as if they were singular is almost a breach of logic in and of itself.

In the OP, fan interference prevents the defense from making the catch.

The literal application you advocate, whereby there can only be one offended team, causes an even greater damage, only this time the damage is inflicted by the umpire, (preventing the offense from scoring).

This hardly seems like this should be the intent of the rule.

[KJUmp]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

I'm trying not to be obtuse here... but what do you need rule support for? The rule clearly says to do 3 things. You're stopping at 2 for no apparent reason. When the rule says to do 3 things, you don't need rule support to not stop at 2... the rule IS the rule support.

1 - ball is dead.
2 - batter-runner is out.

Now we're at 3, with a runner on third that in our own judgement would have scored had there been no interference. There is only one remaining "offended" (Yes, I hate that word here) party; only one remaining player on the field that was hurt by the ball being declared dead. That would be the runner at 3rd.

The first half of the rule states what to do when the ball is interfered with by a spectator but not caught. It says to place runners where they would have gotten to without the interference. The second half of the rule is not to contradict that, but rather to give us solid rule support to rule an out on the batter-runner, and still allow us to clear the rest of the damage.

For when the OC notifies me and my partner(s) of his intent to play the game under protest because we did not allow R3 to score.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by Dakota

So, by that logic, the last sentence of ASA Rule 8-7-P-NOTE means nothing at all.

We cannot treat the ASA Rule Book as inerrant holy writ.

Assigning high precision on the use of "the" in a rule book that is rampant with the use of "their" and similar words as if they were singular is almost a breach of logic in and of itself.

In the OP, fan interference prevents the defense from making the catch.

The literal application you advocate, whereby there can only be one offended team, causes an even greater damage, only this time the damage is inflicted by the umpire, (preventing the offense from scoring).

This hardly seems like this should be the intent of the rule.

Not sure what 8-7.P NOTE has to do with this topic, but, to be clear, I am only relating to the NCAA application of their rule on this play (OP). ASA clearly tells us to place all runners after the dead ball and out.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

Not sure what 8-7.P NOTE has to do with this topic, ...

It relates to taking the rule book literally. If you take the wording of rule 8-7-P literally, and the wording of the accompanying note literally, the last sentence of the note means nothing... it never applies to anything.

As to ASA / NCAA, I assumed your reference to KR meant the ASA Supervisor of Umpires.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Dakota

It relates to taking the rule book literally. If you take the wording of rule 8-7-P literally, and the wording of the accompanying note literally, the last sentence of the note means nothing... it never applies to anything.

The sentence to which you are referring, "This (INT by a retired runner) does not apply to a batter-runner who is entitled to run on a dropped third strike" was meant to be an exception to the referenced rule for BR because there are still many who seem to not be able to differentiate between a R & BR and want to apply an INT ruling to the situation.

However, it is useless because if the player was not entitled to run on a U3K, s/he would not be a BR, nor would their existence on the base path be a violation of the rule it references.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

No, they don't mean just the defense, because the offense could be THE offended team.

Originally Posted by NCAA Rule 4.9

If the act clearly prevented a fielder from catching a fly ball in the field of play, the ball is dead, the batter is out, and the umpire shall award the offended team the appropriate compensation that, in his or her opinion, would have resulted had interference not taken place.

Your contention is that in the case where the interference prevented a fielder from catching a fly ball, this part of rule could ONLY refer to the defense. I contend that if that were the case, it would say "the defense" instead of "the offended team". If they meant ONLY the defense in this part of the rule, they would not be vague as to what team could be "offended". I further contend that after "the ball is dead, the batter is out", the remaining offended team in the OP is clearly the offense.

[CecilOne]

OK, I'll go further.
If the spectator interference prevents the run from scoring, isn't the offense more offended than just losing an out by the defense.
I know that is not clear; but think about it.