INT - Batted Ball

[Larry in TN]

BR hits a bunt down the 1B line.  F1 coming over to field it has to pull up hard to avoid being leveled by the BR running to 1B.  Does the rolling ball's position fair/foul have any affect on the interference call?

 

[ricka56]

Does the rolling ball's position fair/foul have any affect on the interference call?

 

If the ground ball was foul and didn't have any chance of coming back fair, what did BR interfer with ?

[CricketChapman]

Determining whether the ball is foul at the very moment the hindrance/contact/etc; occurs is not explicitly determinative of whether the hindrance/contact is INT or nothing.

If the ball has a reasonable chance of going fair, and BR hinder/contacts/etc; the protected fielder, BR is out.  If the ball does not have a reasonable chance of being fair, it is nothing but a foul.

[Rich Ives]

7.09 It is interference by a batter or a runner when—

 

(j) He fails to avoid a fielder who is attempting to field a batted ball,

 

PENALTY FOR INTERFERENCE: The runner is out and the ball is dead.

 

 

See if you can find where is says "fair batted ball".

[noumpere]

From J/R:

Runner/Fielder Contact, Not Interference

1– The batter chops a ball along the first base line in foul territory. The pitcher is reaching

for it, but cannot touch it because of contact by the batter-runner. The ball, untouched,

rolls foul: no interference, foul ball.

[Larry in TN]

See if you can find where is says "fair batted ball".

 

That's what I thought.

 

I'm trying to figure out why INT wasn't called in a LL Senior division game.  All the umpire would say was that it was a judgement call and at most he had only "incidental contact".  F1 was running to reach the rolling ball and had to stop hard to avoid the collision with BR.  I've talked to him in the past about INT calls and, if I understand correctly, if the fielder chooses to pull up to avoid the collision then he won't call the INT.  So I guess I have to teach the kids to plow through the runner.

 

To Ricka's comment, he interfered with the fielders right to reach the batted ball and touch it foul, or wait to see if it came fair, as he might choose.

[noumpere]

 

 

To Ricka's comment, he interfered with the fielders right to reach the batted ball and touch it foul, or wait to see if it came fair, as he might choose.

 

so if it stayed foul, then the results are the same -- it's a foul ball either way.

 

If the fielder is just standing there watching the ball to see if it comes fair, then he's not in the act of fielding the ball and it's likely NOT int.

[Jimurray]

See if you can find where is says "fair batted ball".

 

That's what I thought.

 

I'm trying to figure out why INT wasn't called in a LL Senior division game.  All the umpire would say was that it was a judgement call and at most he had only "incidental contact".  F1 was running to reach the rolling ball and had to stop hard to avoid the collision with BR.  I've talked to him in the past about INT calls and, if I understand correctly, if the fielder chooses to pull up to avoid the collision then he won't call the INT.  So I guess I have to teach the kids to plow through the runner.

 

To Ricka's comment, he interfered with the fielders right to reach the batted ball and touch it foul, or wait to see if it came fair, as he might choose.

INT requires the runner to "hinder" the fielder and if the pitcher pulls up to avoid getting trucked on a fair ball on the line I would call the INT. BUT an MLB pitcher a few years ago did not get that call in a similar sit. As you say, you might need your pitcher to get trucked.

[Larry in TN]

so if it stayed foul, then the results are the same -- it's a foul ball either way.

 

If the fielder is just standing there watching the ball to see if it comes fair, then he's not in the act of fielding the ball and it's likely NOT int.

 

When the interference occurs the fair/foul status of the batted-ball has not yet been determined.  The fielder is running attempting to get to the ball and is stopped in his tracks by the BR.

 

If the ball is fair he has lost his chance to get the ball before it might go foul.

 

If the ball is foul he has lost his chance to touch the ball in foul territory to kill the play before it might go fair.

 

Either action is a legitimate play on the ball by the defender.  I am not aware of any rule which allows for a delayed interference call based on what happens after the interference occurs.  That's why I asked.  What's the rule support for your contention that it's only interference if he would have a play once reaching the ball?

[noumpere]

see my post 5.

[Replacematt]

 

so if it stayed foul, then the results are the same -- it's a foul ball either way.

 

If the fielder is just standing there watching the ball to see if it comes fair, then he's not in the act of fielding the ball and it's likely NOT int.

 

When the interference occurs the fair/foul status of the batted-ball has not yet been determined.  The fielder is running attempting to get to the ball and is stopped in his tracks by the BR.

 

If the ball is fair he has lost his chance to get the ball before it might go foul.

 

If the ball is foul he has lost his chance to touch the ball in foul territory to kill the play before it might go fair.

 

Either action is a legitimate play on the ball by the defender.  I am not aware of any rule which allows for a delayed interference call based on what happens after the interference occurs.  That's why I asked.  What's the rule support for your contention that it's only interference if he would have a play once reaching the ball?

 

 

Interference with a fielder attempting to field an infield fly.

[Replacematt]

see my post 5.

 

Not relevant. In that example, the reason that there is no interference is because the result of the play wasn't altered--the ball started foul, stayed foul, and at no point was there a potential play.

[noumpere]

 

see my post 5.

 

Not relevant. In that example, the reason that there is no interference is because the result of the play wasn't altered--the ball started foul, stayed foul, and at no point was there a potential play.

 

In the JR play, the pitcher was "reaching for the ball".  In the OP, the pitcher didn't reach for the ball, but was close enough to do so had the BR not been there.  I see it as relevant.

 

If you believe J/R (and I get that not all do, not all of the time), then I think: (a) if the ball is over fair territory, it's INT; (b) if the ball is over foul territory and then becomes fair, it's INT; © if the ball is over foul territory and remains foul, it's "weak int / int without a play" and just a strike on the batter (assuming < 2 at the start of this)

[goody14]

 

so if it stayed foul, then the results are the same -- it's a foul ball either way.

 

If the fielder is just standing there watching the ball to see if it comes fair, then he's not in the act of fielding the ball and it's likely NOT int.

 

When the interference occurs the fair/foul status of the batted-ball has not yet been determined.  The fielder is running attempting to get to the ball and is stopped in his tracks by the BR.

 

If the ball is fair he has lost his chance to get the ball before it might go foul.

 

If the ball is foul he has lost his chance to touch the ball in foul territory to kill the play before it might go fair.

 

Either action is a legitimate play on the ball by the defender.  I am not aware of any rule which allows for a delayed interference call based on what happens after the interference occurs.  That's why I asked.  What's the rule support for your contention that it's only interference if he would have a play once reaching the ball?

 

 

How about a batter interfering with a catcher on a steal attempt...

[Replacematt]

 

 

see my post 5.

 

Not relevant. In that example, the reason that there is no interference is because the result of the play wasn't altered--the ball started foul, stayed foul, and at no point was there a potential play.

 

In the JR play, the pitcher was "reaching for the ball".  In the OP, the pitcher didn't reach for the ball, but was close enough to do so had the BR not been there.  I see it as relevant.

 

If you believe J/R (and I get that not all do, not all of the time), then I think: (a) if the ball is over fair territory, it's INT; (b) if the ball is over foul territory and then becomes fair, it's INT; © if the ball is over foul territory and remains foul, it's "weak int / int without a play" and just a strike on the batter (assuming < 2 at the start of this)

 

 

What the pitcher was doing isn't the difference--it's that there can't be interference when there was no possibility of a play. In the J/R example, there was no possibility of a play--the part of the pitcher reaching for the ball is to illustrate that hindering a fielder on a foul ball is nothing.

[ricka56]

If the ball is foul he has lost his chance to touch the ball in foul territory to kill the play before it might go fair.

 

Foul ground ball that has no chance of becoming fair is fielded by the 3BC before F5 has a "chance to touch the ball in foul territory to kill the play before it might go fair"... what do you have ?

 

What is the difference in your OP? The ball is foul, will never become fair (I assume that was the OP result), what play is BR interferring with ? Review the definition of interference. A possible play is part of the criteria in 2.00 ("a play" may not be written in 7.09(j) but it must be implied). If no possible play, no interference.

[noumpere]

 

 

 

see my post 5.

 

Not relevant. In that example, the reason that there is no interference is because the result of the play wasn't altered--the ball started foul, stayed foul, and at no point was there a potential play.

 

In the JR play, the pitcher was "reaching for the ball".  In the OP, the pitcher didn't reach for the ball, but was close enough to do so had the BR not been there.  I see it as relevant.

 

If you believe J/R (and I get that not all do, not all of the time), then I think: (a) if the ball is over fair territory, it's INT; (b) if the ball is over foul territory and then becomes fair, it's INT; © if the ball is over foul territory and remains foul, it's "weak int / int without a play" and just a strike on the batter (assuming < 2 at the start of this)

 

 

What the pitcher was doing isn't the difference--it's that there can't be interference when there was no possibility of a play. In the J/R example, there was no possibility of a play--the part of the pitcher reaching for the ball is to illustrate that hindering a fielder on a foul ball is nothing.

 

where do you get this from?  In the JR play the ball was "chopped along the first base line";.  In the OP it was "bunted down the first base line."  In both cases we're talking about a ball that is over foul territory at the time of "int" and not obvious that it will remain foul (unless I've missed something).

[Replacematt]

 

 

 

 

see my post 5.

 

Not relevant. In that example, the reason that there is no interference is because the result of the play wasn't altered--the ball started foul, stayed foul, and at no point was there a potential play.

 

In the JR play, the pitcher was "reaching for the ball".  In the OP, the pitcher didn't reach for the ball, but was close enough to do so had the BR not been there.  I see it as relevant.

 

If you believe J/R (and I get that not all do, not all of the time), then I think: (a) if the ball is over fair territory, it's INT; (b) if the ball is over foul territory and then becomes fair, it's INT; © if the ball is over foul territory and remains foul, it's "weak int / int without a play" and just a strike on the batter (assuming < 2 at the start of this)

 

 

What the pitcher was doing isn't the difference--it's that there can't be interference when there was no possibility of a play. In the J/R example, there was no possibility of a play--the part of the pitcher reaching for the ball is to illustrate that hindering a fielder on a foul ball is nothing.

 

where do you get this from?  In the JR play the ball was "chopped along the first base line";.  In the OP it was "bunted down the first base line."  In both cases we're talking about a ball that is over foul territory at the time of "int" and not obvious that it will remain foul (unless I've missed something).

 

 

Yes, you did. J/R's example says it started foul and remained foul. No chance of a play--even if F1 had gotten to it, it would have been foul.

[ricka56]

Yes, you did. J/R's example says it started foul and remained foul. No chance of a play--even if F1 had gotten to it, it would have been foul.

 

The only difference that I see between the OP and the J/R play is no contact (OP) versus contact (J/R). Both occurred when the ball was foul, both balls stayed foul.

[Larry in TN]

Does everyone agree that if the ball is FOUL at the time of the potential INT, and the ball stays FOUL, then there is no INT called?

 

How about if the ball is FAIR at the time of the potential INT but the ball ends up FOUL?  i.e. the defender may have had the opportunity to reach the ball while it was still fair?

 

And lastly, what about a ball that is FOUL at the time of potential INT but the ball ends up FAIR?

 

What I'm getting out of the discussion so far is "Nothing", "INT", and "INT".

[ricka56]

if the ball is FOUL at the time of the potential INT I've got something (interference/foul ?) and the ball stays FOUL,   I've got a foul ball

 

How about if the ball is FAIR at the time of the potential INT but the ball ends up FOUL? I've got interference

 

what about a ball that is FOUL at the time of potential INT I've got something (interference/foul ?) but the ball ends up FAIR?  I've got interference