The rule has been quoted twice, once by Steve in post #2 and then by me in post #6. ASA reorganized the book this year, therefore there is a slight change between our two citations. In 2014, the "fair or foul" appears as an exception; this year it is a rule unto itself, which I cited and posted, appears on page 103 of the Official Rules of Softball Participant Manual, 2015 edition.


BTW, this is NOT a new rule. The "fair or foul" provision was added around 2000.

Not necessarily true. The rule cited requires that the 2nd out on the INT be rule only if the umpire judges the fielder could have caught the routine fly ball with ordinary effort.

And before someone states the it must have been or the INT never would have been ruled, those two highlighted words are not a requirement for an umpire to rule INT

You are correct, Routine and Ordinary effort are not words in the definition of interference . . . in theory. In practice, I have a difficult time imagining a play in which I would not rule interference when a fielder is hindered on a fly ball, over foul territory, isn't routine, or be caught with ordinary effort.

For example, college game in 2014. R1 on third, looping foul ball that hits close to the third base dugout. F5 reacts by leaving her feet in a dive attempt, dives right into R1. I ruled no interference (I was U3) and neither did the PU. Why: because I didn't think, even with extraordinary effort, she could catch the ball.

And the OP sure makes it sound like the ball was routine and able to be caught with ordinary effort.

Just for the record.

The NFHS ruling is the runner is out (who interfered), all other runners return to the bases occupied at the time of the interference and the ball is a foul ball.

I have a problem with this rule in one regard.

What about this situation.

R1 on third, R2 on 1st 3-2 count. R1 is stealing on the release. Ball is popped up just to the foul side of the 3rd base. F5 is in position to make the catch and will have an easy throw back to 1st for the double play. R1 while returning to 3rd base from her leadoff bumps into F5 causing her to miss the catch.

In the following situation, the rule does not allow the batter to be called out, but she would have been out had the interference not occurred. At the same time, had the interference not occurred, R2 very likely would have been doubled off first base. In this instance we are benefitting the offense for the act of interference by allowing the foul ball rather than an out on the batter.

Always been taught, don't wait to see the result of the INT before calling INT...

ASA rules: Sky-high fly ball just foul of 3B (ordinary effort situation) . R1 tangles up badly with F5, INT called. F5 still has time to extricate herself and catch the ball.

The dead ball bell can't be unrung, so we still have runner and batter out?

Ignoring the R2 part, an out of R1 is more of a penalty than an out of the batter.

OK, lets look at a similar situation. R1 on 3rd, R2 on second, R3 on first, full count. 0 or 1 out. Runners are going on the pitch (not smart, but not unheard of). Pop up right near 3rd base, that could be caught, but not with reasonable effort. On the way back to third, R3 interferes with F5 who could have made a difficult catch. The ball would be fair. What is the ruling?

Assuming your wording indicates the BR would not be ruled out and assuming that the ball is over fair territory at the time of the INT:

INT, R3 out, BR awarded 1B, runners forced to move up do.

I think you both mean R1. :p :rolleyes:

Did Mike think he was on the baseball board???? :eek:

Mike followed the referenced post and the reply would be the same