Sharing what I learn here...

[youngump]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Don't understand your point here.



It all comes down to a foul ball is a foul and dead ball, so there is no possibility of INT. What it "could" be is irrelevant.

My point is that if you say that fielding a batted ball from fair territory is not a play as you're way of getting out of the shortcoming in the book then you run into the problem that fielding a third strike in slow pitch before it can become fair is in fact an attempt to get a player out and is therefore a play.
On second thought, this doesn't matter much because the result will be the same either way. (Out for interference or out for striking out.)

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by youngump

They both have to do with fielders. I just mistyped the first one in copying it. (I also fixed it above)

Got it. Deleted my reply.

[CecilOne]

hold for me later

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by youngump

My point is that if you say that fielding a batted ball from fair territory is not a play as you're way of getting out of the shortcoming in the book then you run into the problem that fielding a third strike in slow pitch before it can become fair is in fact an attempt to get a player out and is therefore a play.
On second thought, this doesn't matter much because the result will be the same either way. (Out for interference or out for striking out.)

Forget the SP comment, it is irrelevant

[youngump]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Forget the SP comment, it is irrelevant

The long dead thread lives again. I'm not sure what you mean by that though I agree it isn't particularly relevant.

If the thread is going to live on, let me ask it this way: I think we agree that if the ball is in foul territory and the batter runner runs into the fielder who is attempting to field it that we have a foul ball. Now suppose that happens and you make that call and after the game your partner asks you to back that up from the rulebook. What do you tell him or what do you say if he then shows you 8-2-F.

[bsnalex]

Ahem...allow me to throw my ISF ruleset in (that's what I always use because that's what British Softball uses...)

8.2.g.2 Batter-Runner is out when he interferes with a fielder attempting to field a batted ball.

It makes no distinction between a fair or fould batted ball. One could argue that a foul ball that appears to be rolling fair will have a F3 running hard at it to keep it foul because they know they won't have a play at first if it's fair, so the interference remains on the foul ball.

Incidentally, the ruleset also mentions that the runner may run beyond 3ft from the baseline to avoid causing interference.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by bsnalex

Ahem...allow me to throw my ISF ruleset in (that's what I always use because that's what British Softball uses...)

8.2.g.2 Batter-Runner is out when he interferes with a fielder attempting to field a batted ball.

It makes no distinction between a fair or fould batted ball. One could argue that a foul ball that appears to be rolling fair will have a F3 running hard at it to keep it foul because they know they won't have a play at first if it's fair, so the interference remains on the foul ball.

Incidentally, the ruleset also mentions that the runner may run beyond 3ft from the baseline to avoid causing interference.

So, Alex, if F3 is running hard at the ball to KEEP IT FOUL, how can there be interference of a PLAY (defined as an attempt to make an OUT)?? You have merely restated the conundrum created by an unspecific rule.

That is the crux of the issue.

[tcannizzo]

Originally Posted by bsnalex

It makes no distinction between a fair or fould batted ball. One could argue that a foul ball that appears to be rolling fair will have a F3 running hard at it to keep it foul because they know they won't have a play at first if it's fair, so the interference remains on the foul ball.

One could also argue that the ball is Fair, until it is declared Foul.
A ball rolling in foul ground is not foul until it settles or is touched in foul territory.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

So, Alex, if F3 is running hard at the ball to KEEP IT FOUL, how can there be interference of a PLAY (defined as an attempt to make an OUT)?? You have merely restated the conundrum created by an unspecific rule.

That is the crux of the issue.

If that's the crux of the issue, then how do you rule in this situation: slow pitch game, 0-2 count. R1 at 3rd, R2 at 2nd, BR hits a weird bouncer into foul territory that hits a rock and is starting to head fair. R1 has already scored when the First baseman tries to glove the ball in foul territory to keep it foul. Seeing this the very alert BR pushes his glove out of the way. The ball rolls into first base causing it to come to rest.

Now same issue, but on the third base side with R2 committing the interference.

In all cases the attempt to field the foul ball is an attempt to get an out and therefore a play.

Further, if it's impossible to interfere with an attempt to field this ball, then not only is it not interference in this situation but the runners have done nothing that would make the ball dead. And as soon as the ball is fair, there's no play left, so we're just going to make no call here? And what of all the rules that talk about interference while the ball is over fair territory?

To me the crux of the matter is that the rule is very badly drafted. I'm pretty sure the expected call is: if the ball is in foul territory when the defense is interfered with and it's not a fly ball then we simply have a foul ball. I can't believe that the rule book really meant to distinguish between the results of the first and second play I listed above.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by youngump

If that's the crux of the issue, then how do you rule in this situation: slow pitch game, 0-2 count. R1 at 3rd, R2 at 2nd, BR hits a weird bouncer into foul territory that hits a rock and is starting to head fair. R1 has already scored when the First baseman tries to glove the ball in foul territory to keep it foul. Seeing this the very alert BR pushes his glove out of the way. The ball rolls into first base causing it to come to rest.

Now same issue, but on the third base side with R2 committing the interference.

In all cases the attempt to field the foul ball is an attempt to get an out and therefore a play.

Huh? If the fielder was successful in fielding the ball in foul territory, what play would he be able to make for an out?

Why not just kill play when you realize what the BR's or R2's intent was, and rule the ball foul, placing the runners back?

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by Manny A

Huh? If the fielder was successful in fielding the ball in foul territory, what play would he be able to make for an out?

I think his point is the foul on strike 3 in sloowww pitch

Originally Posted by Manny A

Why not just kill play when you realize what the BR's or R2's intent was, and rule the ball foul, placing the runners back?

By what rule?

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by youngump

If that's the crux of the issue, then how do you rule in this situation: slow pitch game, 0-2 count. R1 at 3rd, R2 at 2nd, BR hits a weird bouncer into foul territory that hits a rock and is starting to head fair. R1 has already scored when the First baseman tries to glove the ball in foul territory to keep it foul. Seeing this the very alert BR pushes his glove out of the way. The ball rolls into first base causing it to come to rest.

Now same issue, but on the third base side with R2 committing the interference.

In all cases the attempt to field the foul ball is an attempt to get an out and therefore a play.

Further, if it's impossible to interfere with an attempt to field this ball, then not only is it not interference in this situation but the runners have done nothing that would make the ball dead. And as soon as the ball is fair, there's no play left, so we're just going to make no call here? And what of all the rules that talk about interference while the ball is over fair territory?

To me the crux of the matter is that the rule is very badly drafted. I'm pretty sure the expected call is: if the ball is in foul territory when the defense is interfered with and it's not a fly ball then we simply have a foul ball. I can't believe that the rule book really meant to distinguish between the results of the first and second play I listed above.

As I see it, you (and the definitions of PLAY and interference) answered your own questions. When it is a PLAY, there can be interference; if no PLAY, no interference. These definitions don't change when it is a runner versus a batter-runner, or a fair versus foul ball.

When the 3k foul is an out in slowpitch, interfering with fielding it and making it foul by touching it can be interference, while keeping it foul simply isn't in fastpitch. It's not really different from differentiating between a fly ball over foul territory that can be a PLAY and a bounding ball over foul territory; it either can or cannot be a PLAY, depending on the game you are playing.

That's what the rules say; you seem to be looking for a greater cosmic understanding.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

I think his point is the foul on strike 3 in sloowww pitch

Oh yeah, THAT game. Forgot about it.

Originally Posted by CecilOne

By what rule?

ASA 10-1 maybe?

[youngump]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

When the 3k foul is an out in slowpitch, interfering with fielding it and making it foul by touching it can be interference, while keeping it foul simply isn't in fastpitch.

So in my two scenarios on your field. BR is out in the first. Foul ball on the second?

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

That's what the rules say; you seem to be looking for a greater cosmic understanding.

Well, what the rules say often has very little to do with how the game is called. If it isn't interference to keep a fielder from keeping the ball foul, then the ball presumably remains live? (On the theory that no rule has made it dead)

[tcannizzo]

All BR has to do is contact the ball (kick) while it is in foul territory, then you have a foul ball.