Sharing what I learn here...

[jmkupka]

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....

[youngump]

Originally Posted by jmkupka

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".

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.

[jmkupka]

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.)

[youngump]

Originally Posted by jmkupka

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?

[jmkupka]

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.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by jmkupka

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.)

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.

[LIUmp]

Originally Posted by Manny A

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.

[chapmaja]

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.

[jmkupka]

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 )

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

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.

Correct.

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

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

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

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Correct.

Incorrect. A ground ball in foul territory that contacts or is contacted by a runner is simply a foul ball. I didn't say the runner contacts the ball because that wasn't part of the original discussion. If the BR or even a runner on first interferes with a fielder making a play on a ball that could have ended up in fair terriroty, that is interference. You are correct about the ball contacting a runner in foul territory.

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

See Red above.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

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.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

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).

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by youngump

One you have the slow pitch third strike problem.

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.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

I'm not sure it's ENTIRELY relevant - but the two rules you quoted are not equivalents anyway (one for BR, one for R) ... the first you quoted has to do with the BALL. The second has to do with A FIELDER.

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