Rule question

[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.

[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.