Question on ASA RS #33
 

Here's what the ASA Rules Supplement on Interference says when it comes to a runner hindering a fielder on a batted foul fly:

If interference occurs by the runner on a foul fly ball not caught but, in the umpire's judgment, could have been caught with ordinary effort had interference not occurred, the runner is out and the batter is also out. If, in the judgment of the umpire, the foul fly ball could not have been caught with ordinary effort, a strike is called, the ball is dead, and the batter remains at bat.

So, if the ball could not have been caught with ordinary effort, would we still rule the runner out? The RS really doesn't say. It seems to me if a foul fly is judged uncatchable, then there is no interference since the fielder could not make a play. Or do we give the fielder the maximum benefit of the doubt that she might have made the catch with extraordinary effort?

If is doesn't say, why are you trying to read something that isn't there?

Because rule books are notorious for using conflicting language, leaving out vital information, being outright wrong, etc. etc. etc.

(Edited to add) So, I take it from your response that the runner is not out, since it doesn't say?

It also doesn't say we should award all runners an extra base ... so I guess you should do that too.

(This OP is one of the strangest I've ever read from an actual umpire...)

Wow; I don't think it's strange at all. Maybe I'm just thinking too much into it.

So, either you're going to have no outs or two outs for this? There is no possibility to simply rule the runner out under ASA here?

Your ruling would be the same as any other uncaught fly ball over foul territory... :)

And if a BR goes from the plate, then 3rd, 2nd & 1st and finally home, you are going to allow a run to score because the book doesn't demand a specific order?

While I agree some language seems conflicting, IMO, it is more likely that many issues people have is that rules do not expressly address every little possible scenario and "what if" situations.

If a Senior team shows up at a Men's E state tournament and only have bats approved only for senior softball, do you allow them to play with those bats because they are a Senior team? Do the rules address specifically address that?

If a plane crashes in an adjacent field, do you rule "no pitch"? :)

And, yes, it is heading to absurdity, but IMO so was your question since your answer is in the first three words of your citation.

I think you answered your own question. It's either ordinary effort or it's not ordinary effort. It's either 2 outs or a strike.

Not to dogpile, but I was thinking when this was asked:

If it couldn't be caught with ordinary effort, how would it be interference? This is an interference rule, and there has to be a "play", which means an opportunity to make an out.

So, if no play, then no interference, and no out. Just an unfortunate contact without added penalty.

Wondering why that wasn't apparent.

Maybe because there is some space between "could be caught with ordinary effort" and "opportunity to make an out".

Where??? :confused:
Do you mean an opportunity does not have to be easy?

Can we please find an alternative to "ordinary effort", bad enough in the IFR? :rolleyes:

Yup!

General interfere does not use the "ordinary effort" standard. It does need to be somewhere this side of "remote possibility", but it doesn't need to be can of corn easy.

The conundrum, at least in my feeble mind, comes from the rule itself, 8-7-J. It says a runner is out when that runner interferes with a fielder attempting to field a foul fly ball. The Effect following that says that a second out is warranted if the interference is an attempt to prevent a double play.

Further, there is the Exception after the Section 7J-L Note that says the batter is out when the interference prevents the fielder from catching a routine foul fly with ordinary effort.

So, as I read it, the wording leaves the door open for the umpire to judge that the fielder could have made a play on the ball that might not have been routine with ordinary effort. And in that case where the fielder gets the benefit of the doubt, then the umpire could just rule the runner out, but leave the batter up to bat with a strike added to the count (unless there were two strikes).

C'mon, we all have seen infielders make nonroutine, extraordinary catches on fly balls that we judge does not warrant an Infield Fly call. If a runner while off the base hinders that infielder, we will rule interference, wouldn't we?

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.

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.