Rule question

[MD Longhorn]

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?

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

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.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

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.

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

[nopachunts]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

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?

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.

[KJUmp]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

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?

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.

[MD Longhorn]

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.

[KJUmp]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

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."

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by KJUmp

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.

[KJUmp]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

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.

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.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

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.

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.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by KJUmp

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.

Short sighted writing.

[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.