Question on ASA RS #33

[Tru_in_Blu]

The exception reads:
If the interference prevents the fielder from catching a routine fly ball, fair or foul, with ordinary effort, the batter is also out.

We had this play in the Western Regional in 2012 and the umpires ruled the runner out and added a strike to the count. This would have been the correct ruling for NFHS, but we were told it was incorrect for ASA.

[Andy]

Whereas I, on the other hand, applied the ASA rule in a High School game.

R1 on third, B2 hits a high pop fly just short of third base and over foul territory. R1 had taken a lead with the pitch, then was retreating to third when she collided with F5 moving to catch the fly. I killed the play, ruled R1 out for interference, then the batter out as well. Blew that one....

That was one of those games that needed the two outs, though since one team was ahead about 18-2 in the third inning before we implemented time limits in HS ball.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by Tru_in_Blu

We had this play in the Western Regional in 2012 and the umpires ruled the runner out and added a strike to the count. This would have been the correct ruling for NFHS, but we were told it was incorrect for ASA.

Totally agree if the foul fly was catchable with ordinary effort. But if the infielder could have possibly made a running over-the-shoulder catch if she had not been hindered, I just don't understand why ASA would state that the runner is not out in that case.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Manny A

Totally agree if the foul fly was catchable with ordinary effort. But if the infielder could have possibly made a running over-the-shoulder catch if she had not been hindered, I just don't understand why ASA would state that the runner is not out in that case.

ASA makes no such assertion, but leaves it to the umpire's judgment.

And as I routinely point out in clinics, ASAs rules are often not of a punitive nature. Some of that is to avoid umpires from arbitrarily giving away outs like candy on Halloween. IOW, the possibility of an out needs to be of a very high percentage to be ruled.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

IOW, the possibility of an out needs to be of a very high percentage to be ruled.

Wow. This is a first for me. I've never heard this as a criterion. I have always believed that the protected fielder has the maximum benefit of the doubt when it comes to interference.

[jmkupka]

It's often been posted here that we don't wait to see the result of the interference before calling INT.

F3 bolts to her left on contact and runs hard into 1b coach. Ball lands next to the fence, maybe beyond F3's reach, maybe not, we'll never know.

I called INT (from my position at C) right after the collision, ball a little before or after its apex.

One p.o.'d coach... I lost no sleep on that one.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by jmkupka

It's often been posted here that we don't wait to see the result of the interference before calling INT.

F3 bolts to her left on contact and runs hard into 1b coach. Ball lands next to the fence, maybe beyond F3's reach, maybe not, we'll never know.

I called INT (from my position at C) right after the collision, ball a little before or after its apex.

One p.o.'d coach... I lost no sleep on that one.

If you felt the catch was likely (or probable), that call would be correct. I've never been told the catch needs to be nearly certain. In fact, since the wording is nearly identical - we've been told to have the same expectation of a likely catch on this as we would in calling IFF.