Interference on pop up foul

[Big Slick]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Me too. But what you say here does not answer the question either. Where was the ball when the INT happened

Since ASA is mentioned in the OP, it does not matter the location of the ball. Two out either way: 8-7-J Effect F.

If the interference prevents the fielder from catching a routine fly ball, fair or foul, with ordinary effort, the batter is also out

It does matter for FED and NCAA.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Big Slick

Since ASA is mentioned in the OP, it does not matter the location of the ball. Two out either way: 8-7-J Effect F.

Um .. that's not what MY rulebook says. 2 outs is the effect under "if the interference was, in the umpire's judgement, an attempt to prevent a double play..."

[Big Slick]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Um .. that's not what MY rulebook says. 2 outs is the effect under "if the interference was, in the umpire's judgement, an attempt to prevent a double play..."

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.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Big Slick

Since ASA is mentioned in the OP, it does not matter the location of the ball. Two out either way: 8-7-J Effect F.
.

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

[Big Slick]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

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.