Rule question
 

ASA, NCAA, FED (specify if you believe it differs).

No outs, runner on third. Deep drive to the fence. In your judgement, this is a prototypical sacrifice fly if it doesn't go over, runner will score if it's caught.

A spectator reaches over the fence and prevents the outfielder from catching the ball. Ruling?

Are you asking if all rules are dead ball, batter & runners get what was expected?

I assume your judgment is a catch if no spec. int.

NFHS 8-2-12, Ball is dead, BR is out, and umpire awards bases as per his/her judgement as to the bases the runners would have reached absent the spectator interference.

Yes, in the umpire's judgement, the ball would have been caught and the runner would have made it home.

NCAA 4.9 EFFECT- 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 (for example, return runners to bases, an out) that, in his or her opinion, wouid have resulted had interference not taken place.

As written in your sitch, I suppose a case could be made that both the offensive team and defensive team were "offended." However, as written, the rule doesn't seem to support allowing the runner on 3rd to score.

It is the NCAA wording that is causing a bit of a stir on another site. Scoring the run is, of course, the correct ruling.

One otherwise solid umpire is using that 1-2-3 bit and the fact that offended team is singular to state that if you rule an out, you can't score the runner. My contention is that if this ruling (Dead ball, BR out, nothing else) was what the rulesmakers wanted, part 3 would not be there at all... it would simply be (1) Dead ball and (2) BR out. Part 3 is there because they DO want us to alleviate ANYONE who was damaged (offended? Odd word there) by the ball suddenly being ruled dead due to the INT.

No argument with your contention or logic regarding 'part 3', it's a certainly valid point.

However, absent an interp. from DA or change in the wording of 4.9 in the 2014-15 Rule Book, like the the umpire on the other site, (for now) I'm staying with the "1-2-3 bit."

You SHOULD stay with the 1-2-3 bit ... and award the runner home.

I'm completely failing to understand why one would only call dead ball (1), rule the batter out (2), and then not proceed to 3 and award the runner home.

Short sighted writing.

Because, as I said in my previous post, I can't find definitive rule support in the book or in any of Dee's interpretations.

Because an absolute literal reading of the rule and effect only appear to allow there to be a correction/award to the offended team (defensive), not to correct the obvious jeopardy resulting to BOTH teams.

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.

Why is the assumption that the only offended team can be the defense? Especially since their issues were cleaned up by 1 and 2.

I'll ask here what I asked there... if the intent of the rule was to ONLY kill the ball and rule the batter out ... what's the purpose of the 3rd part? There would be no need at all to write in the 3rd part... the rule would simply state to kill the ball and rule the batter-runner out.

You are adding the logic that both teams can be offended, buy the rule only states "offended team", with no apparent allowance for there to be two. Only one team was absolutely deprived of the opportunity to make the catch; and DA interpreting for the NCAA is as literal a wordsmith as there is anywhere.

Step 3 could include ruling that the defense was deprived of an obvious double play; or that (on an uncatchable ball) the offense was deprived of an obvious triple or home run. It still only states "team", not "teams" or "team(s)"

I don't disagree with your desire to make it all right; but, again, the rule says exactly what it says, not what we want it to mean.

Actually, while I BELIEVE "offended team" should be plural - although the only case where I can see that happening is Runners on 1st and 3rd, oblivious R2 assuming the ball won't be caught, R1 tagging - offense offended by R1 not being allowed to score, defense offended by being deprived of a chance at getting R2 out at first for leaving.

But that aside, and even taking it literally - if "offended team" could only mean defense --- surely they would have simply typed "the defense". "The offended team" seems to purposely be used so it could apply to either team - whichever might be offended.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. :)