Sharing what I learn here...
 

I love bringing what I learn here to conversations with my partners at tournaments. Constantly finding how much more I can learn.

A recent thread dealt with interference with a batted ball, not necessarily a fair ball.
Batter chops a grounder up the foul side of 1B line. Ball isn't necessarily curving into fair territory, but F1 is charging on the ball to make sure it stays foul. BR collides with F1 before F1 gets there. BR out for INT.
Obviously, we have to be damn sure F1 is not just retrieving the thing, as opposed to making a "play".

This was as hard a sell with these guys as when I enlightened them about RS 38 (awarding home when runner leaves 1B too soon, but is between 2 & 3 when F7 airmails it out of play).

No point to my post, except to say I'm always learning....

I don't think you need to be sure F1 is making a play versus retrieving it. In either case call interference. In either case, the penalty is that the ball is foul not that the BR is out. All you need to decide is whether F1 is the protected fielder.

That's not what I got from the thread here (trying to find it), nor from ASA (8.2.F BATTER-RUNNER IS OUT. When batter-runner interferes with a fielder attempting to field a batted ball.)

On re-reading it you seem to be right. Reading the rule more carefully the rule for making it a foul ball only applies to runners not the batter-runner. This seems extremely inconsistent. (I'd always taken it as one of those the batter runner is a type of runner cases.)
That said, I still don't think it matters if the pitcher had a play, she was trying to field the ball even if casually, no?

I'm sure one of the two scenarios would result in multiple ejections, not, of course, that that would have anything to do with my ruling.

How can a fielder field a batted ball when it is in foul territory? Obviously that would be true on a fly ball that could be caught. But when a fielder fields a ground ball in foul territory, what happens after that? Nothing, nada; it's just a foul ball.

+1. That's why you got looks at your tourney Mr. Kupka. You were mistaken with what you were reading about the ruling.

I only see a couple instances where INT could be called on a foul ball situation.

First, a foul fly ball that has an opportunity to be caught.

Second, a ground ball in foul territory which has a chance to become a fair ball

Third, a foul ball which the offensive team member initiates malicious contact with a fielder. Even in this one I'm not sure we have INT, but I know we have an ejection.

Mabye I am missing something.

Still looking for the thread... fortunately, I've never made this incorrect call, but I hope Irish Mike posts here soon, because his comments on the topic were those I remember (and apparently the ones I misunderstood :()

Correct.

Incorrect. A ground ball in foul territory that contacts or is contacted by a runner is simply a foul ball.

Correct. EJ, no INT. Just a foul ball.

See Red above.

Instead of yelling back at you, I'll let you try to support that by rule. What rule are you using to make the claim that interfering with a fielder trying to field a ball that is currently in foul ground (and, as you say, "has a chance to become fair") is an out.

As I started with above, I came into this discussion believing you were right about this. I still mostly think you are but that the book could be a lot better on this.
That said, let me play devil's advocate for a moment to illustrate the problem I have with the way this is written. If the rule is meant to be interpreted the same way, then why is there a difference between the rules:
8-2-F: When the batter runner interferes with a fielder attempting to field a batted ball
8-7-J-1: When the runner interferes with a fielder attempting to field a FAIR batted ball. [Emphasis added]
(references from 2005 book, hopefully the haven't moved or changed)
[Also see the definition of a foul ball which only references runner]

You could argue that the definition of making a play saves you (it can't be a play if it's an attempt to field a foul ball since that's not an attempt to make an out.) But this has two problems. One you have the slow pitch third strike problem. And two you have the problem that it renders the rule about a ball being foul when the defense is interfered with superfluous (unless you consider the first the solution to the second).

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.

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

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.)

Got it. Deleted my reply.

hold for me later

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

By what rule?

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.

Oh yeah, THAT game. Forgot about it.


ASA 10-1 maybe?

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

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)

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

This is true and the rule supports it.

AFA a play for INT, rule 8.2.F.1 does not mention a play or the word "play", but specifically does mention an attempt to field a batted ball.

Reading any more into it, IMO, could be considered just an attempt to justify a belief that is not supported by the rules.

Should it be changed? Probably, but until it is, why shouldn't the rule be applied as written?

So I'm a little confused here now. I thought you were arguing the same thing Steve was, foul ball in both cases. Now I think I understand your comment about slow pitch being irrelevant.

So am I correct in understanding that you're saying to rule on this as the rule book is written.

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.

Is your ruling: Dead ball at the time the glove is hit, interference, the runner is out. (Not sure if you'd score the run here or call BR out and then call it foul)?

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

Ruling: Foul ball, R2 is guilty of interference but the penalty is just that the ball is foul?

Steve you haven't answered how you'd rule on these either, but I don't think you and Mike agree and I'd love to see you two settle it because when we started this I just thought the rule book was confusing for a play that I understood. Now I have no clue what is expected on this.

Seems to me this is clearly just a foul ball in all softball codes. (And clearly an out in all baseball codes).

I am agreeing that there is an inconsistency between the rules governing the BR and the R.

I am suggesting that lacking a change or a specific interpretation to contradict the rule, you call the rule as written which specifically states that if the BR interferes with the defender attempting to field a BATTED BALL.

Again, I agree it may not be right, but it is what it is.