Interference Foul Ball

[aiber]

With runner on 3rd Base, batter hits a low fly ball to third base side in foul territory. As runner returning to base, 3B collides with runner. Runner out for interference batter continues his at bat. However, my partner on the bases made the call that batter gets 1st base. (Later I found out that he didn't realize that the ball was foul). The offensive coach argued the interference with my partner. I didn't want to act like I was questioning his interference call so I tried to make eye contact with him so we could meet but he didn't want help. I should've overruled his call and feel bad that I didn't.

Rookie mistake.

[Thunderheads]

If I'm not mistaken, you're going to get people respond to this for you to cover stuff like that in a pregame meeting.  Have some sort of signal between you that lets you know you have additional information about the play/ruling that just happened.

 

My .02

[aiber]

If I'm not mistaken, you're going to get people respond to this for you to cover stuff like that in a pregame meeting.  Have some sort of signal between you that lets you know you have additional information about the play/ruling that just happened.

 

My .02

Yes. Exactly. Thanks for the input. Unfortunately, we talked about it during our post game meeting.

[Cav]

Q:  Did you make the foul call?

 

Q:  Did you make the interference call?

[johnnyg08]

With runner on 3rd Base, batter hits a low fly ball to third base side in foul territory. As runner returning to base, 3B collides with runner. Runner out for interference batter continues his at bat. However, my partner on the bases made the call that batter gets 1st base. (Later I found out that he didn't realize that the ball was foul). The offensive coach argued the interference with my partner. I didn't want to act like I was questioning his interference call so I tried to make eye contact with him so we could meet but he didn't want help. I should've overruled his call and feel bad that I didn't.

Rookie mistake.

 

 

If in doubt, especially with a newer partner, you don't need to do the secret signal thing.  If it's a clear misapplication of the rules due to something that you know.  Call him over and get it right. You are a team out there.  

[maven]

With runner on 3rd Base, batter hits a low fly ball to third base side in foul territory. As runner returning to base, 3B collides with runner. Runner out for interference batter continues his at bat. However, my partner on the bases made the call that batter gets 1st base. (Later I found out that he didn't realize that the ball was foul). The offensive coach argued the interference with my partner. I didn't want to act like I was questioning his interference call so I tried to make eye contact with him so we could meet but he didn't want help. I should've overruled his call and feel bad that I didn't.

Rookie mistake.

 

So, you're regretting a "rookie mistake," but let's be clear about what the mistake was.

 

You seem to think that this mistake was in not "overruling" partner's award. But that isn't it: for one thing, by rule no umpire is permitted to overrule another (10-1-4). For another, his award would have been correct, had the ball been fair.

 

The mistake was, when you had a question about the award, not to go to partner then and ask him. "Hey Bob, I see why you ruled INT, but why does the BR get 1B?" A good partner should explain the basis of his award: "on runner INT with a fair batted ball, the BR is awarded 1B." Then you tell him that it was a FOUL ball, and the problem is solved. Maybe. (A bad partner might do any number of other things, but that's irrelevant to sorting out what you should have done.)

 

There's a way to approach a partner non-confrontationally that makes it about getting the call right, not challenging his manhood.

[aiber]

Q:  Did you make the foul call?

 

Q:  Did you make the interference call?

Yes

No

[aiber]

With runner on 3rd Base, batter hits a low fly ball to third base side in foul territory. As runner returning to base, 3B collides with runner. Runner out for interference batter continues his at bat. However, my partner on the bases made the call that batter gets 1st base. (Later I found out that he didn't realize that the ball was foul). The offensive coach argued the interference with my partner. I didn't want to act like I was questioning his interference call so I tried to make eye contact with him so we could meet but he didn't want help. I should've overruled his call and feel bad that I didn't.

Rookie mistake.

 

So, you're regretting a "rookie mistake," but let's be clear about what the mistake was.

 

You seem to think that this mistake was in not "overruling" partner's award. But that isn't it: for one thing, by rule no umpire is permitted to overrule another (10-1-4). For another, his award would have been correct, had the ball been fair.

 

The mistake was, when you had a question about the award, not to go to partner then and ask him. "Hey Bob, I see why you ruled INT, but why does the BR get 1B?" A good partner should explain the basis of his award: "on runner INT with a fair batted ball, the BR is awarded 1B." Then you tell him that it was a FOUL ball, and the problem is solved. Maybe. (A bad partner might do any number of other things, but that's irrelevant to sorting out what you should have done.)

 

There's a way to approach a partner non-confrontationally that makes it about getting the call right, not challenging his manhood.

Yes. New partner. Didn't want to "show him up" because the coach was arguing with him. At the time, I did not want to portray that I was questioning his interference call and as I started walking towards him he kind of expressed that he didn't want help. We spoke after the inning and he told me that he had no idea that it was a foul ball. However, that was odd because I called it foul and also, the defensive coach argued with him also.

The truth is, I think that he was being stubborn and knew that it was foul and later realized that he blew the call and made the excuse that he didn't know that it was foul.

[Majordave]

Here is how I think you handle it under the new emphasis on getting calls correct.

Send coach back to his dugout. Tell him you are going to conference with your partner. Have discussion with partner outside earshot of coach(es) and players. If any changes occur to the play as originally called it is your partner's call to make and explain to the coach, or coaches if need be.

When sending coach back to his dugout tell him he cannot come back out to discuss or argue after your conference with partner and subsequent ruling change or ruling left as is or he risks ejection. (Or in HS I think you can restrict him to the dugout).

[bam]

Why didn't your partner know it was foul?  

 

Surely you announced it loudly enough for the outfielders to hear.  

 

If there's any rookie mistake that led to this, it's the fact that you weren't forcefully enough in declaring the ball foul.  

 

My 

[MidAmUmp]

I would say the screw up would be more that you didn't own the entire call -

If you're on the plate in 2-man, you have...

• All fair/foul on the 3rd base line.
• All catch/no catch on the 3rd base line.
• It would stand to reason you would also have all interference on R3 in these situations.

So, what you should have done is called the ball foul (or not since it's dead on the interference), "Time!" (point at the infraction) "That's interference!" (point at R3) "He's out!" (point at the B/R) "You, back to bat."

 

You have priority on that interference call, just as the base umpire would have had priority on an interference with the SS or 2nd baseman.

[MadMax]

After reading everyone's input here, and the OP (of course), it's ruled as interference because F5 had an opportunity to catch it, right? Regardless of it being foul, yes?

 

So, to @MidAmUmp 's point, and what @johnnyg08 and @bam are alluding to, is why would BR be awarded 1B if no interference had occurred?

 

You are the one ruling whether it is Fair or Foul. Your partner is the one who judged interference, and the ramifications of that (R3 is out). Any further awards / ramifications are a result of those collective rulings. Say F5, despite being interfered with, still manages to stumble his way towards the ball, sticks out his glove, and snags it before it hits the ground. Your partner has already declared "That's Interference!", but is the BR out, or is he awarded 1B?

 

... Right, he's out.

 

A brief conference with your partner should absolutely be initiated. It is not to overrule him, and the discussion should start (from you) that way, "Bubba, your call of interference is right-on. Well-spotted. R3 is out. I've got a foul ball, though, so we need the batter still at bat, alright?". You two, as a team, are getting the/any award right.

[aiber]

Why didn't your partner know it was foul?  

 

Surely you announced it loudly enough for the outfielders to hear.  

 

If there's any rookie mistake that led to this, it's the fact that you weren't forcefully enough in declaring the ball foul.  

 

My 

I think that he did know but he is just acting like he didn't to save face.

[aiber]

I would say the screw up would be more that you didn't own the entire call -

If you're on the plate in 2-man, you have...

• All fair/foul on the 3rd base line.
• All catch/no catch on the 3rd base line.
• It would stand to reason you would also have all interference on R3 in these situations.

So, what you should have done is called the ball foul (or not since it's dead on the interference), "Time!" (point at the infraction) "That's interference!" (point at R3) "He's out!" (point at the B/R) "You, back to bat."

 

You have priority on that interference call, just as the base umpire would have had priority on an interference with the SS or 2nd baseman.

I agree with everything you wrote. However, he made the call before I was able too.

[spiffdawg7]

 

You are the one ruling whether it is Fair or Foul. Your partner is the one who judged interference, and the ramifications of that (R3 is out). Any further awards / ramifications are a result of those collective rulings. Say F5, despite being interfered with, still manages to stumble his way towards the ball, sticks out his glove, and snags it before it hits the ground. Your partner has already declared "That's Interference!", but is the BR out, or is he awarded 1B?

 

... Right, he's out.

 

Just to clarity, the batter would still not be out even if the ball was caught in this situation.  R3 would be out for interference, and the runner placed on 1st if the ball was caught fair or batter back at bat if the ball was caught foul.  The only way to get two outs in this situation is if you thought the interference prevented a likely double play.  The ball being caught or not does not matter.  

[MadMax]

Waitaminute, I just got confused. That's a batted live ball... in the air... that you're saying is irrelevant because interference occurs?

 

Perhaps I misspoke, but the point I'm trying to make is that any awarding of 1B is contingent upon the ruling of the ball.

[johnnyg08]

I think that he did know but he is just acting like he didn't to save face.

I could agree w/ this.

[maven]

Waitaminute, I just got confused. That's a batted live ball... in the air... that you're saying is irrelevant because interference occurs?

 

Right: once the INT happens, the ball will be declared dead before it can be caught.

 

If you have the presence of mind to officiate this play exactly right, wait to kill it for the INT until after the fielder touches the ball, which determines its fair/foul status. The ball is dead instantly due to the runner's INT: since touching precedes possession, the fielder catches a dead ball.

 

As a result, the batter must be treated according to the status of the ball. If foul, then you have a (uncaught, despite appearances) foul ball, batter back to the box. If fair, then the BR is awarded 1B on his teammate's INT (though it's possible in this case to rule 2 out, if a DP is possible without the INT -- 1 on the catch, 2 on R3's retouch).

[Richvee]

 

Waitaminute, I just got confused. That's a batted live ball... in the air... that you're saying is irrelevant because interference occurs?

 

Right: once the INT happens, the ball will be declared dead before it can be caught.

 

If you have the presence of mind to officiate this play exactly right, wait to kill it for the INT until after the fielder touches the ball, which determines its fair/foul status. The ball is dead instantly due to the runner's INT: since touching precedes possession, the fielder catches a dead ball.

 

As a result, the batter must be treated according to the status of the ball. If foul, then you have a (uncaught, despite appearances) foul ball, batter back to the box. If fair, then the BR is awarded 1B on his teammate's INT (though it's possible in this case to rule 2 out, if a DP is possible without the INT -- 1 on the catch, 2 on R3's retouch).

 

OK, I get the whole idea of killing the play at the point we know the ball is fair or foul, and I understand the idea that the ball in not caught because it is dead at the time of the touch.

 

Just to be clear that I've got this right.., if the fly ball lands untouched in foul territory,  it is dead, and ruled foul immediately. It would not matter if the ball landed, untouched in foul territory between home and third and then kicked fair, because it would be dead and declared foul the instant the ball touched the ground in foul territory due to the INT. Correct? 

[maven]

Just to be clear that I've got this right.., if the fly ball lands untouched in foul territory,  it is dead, and ruled foul immediately. It would not matter if the ball landed, untouched in foul territory between home and third and then kicked fair, because it would be dead and declared foul the instant the ball touched the ground in foul territory due to the INT. Correct?

No: ordinarily, the ball is dead immediately on runner INT. We leave it live here in order to determine the fair/foul status, so that we can deal properly with the BR.

 

If the ball lands between HP and 3B, you'd defeat the purpose by killing it immediately. Landing does not determine its fair/foul status: the status is not determined until it is touched or comes to rest.

 

So leave it live until the fair/foul status is determined, whatever that takes.

[Richvee]

 

Just to be clear that I've got this right.., if the fly ball lands untouched in foul territory,  it is dead, and ruled foul immediately. It would not matter if the ball landed, untouched in foul territory between home and third and then kicked fair, because it would be dead and declared foul the instant the ball touched the ground in foul territory due to the INT. Correct?

No: ordinarily, the ball is dead immediately on runner INT. We leave it live here in order to determine the fair/foul status, so that we can deal properly with the BR.

 

If the ball lands between HP and 3B, you'd defeat the purpose by killing it immediately. Landing does not determine its fair/foul status: the status is not determined until it is touched or comes to rest.

 

So leave it live until the fair/foul status is determined, whatever that takes.

 

Makes sense. I'm over thinking. That can be dangerous.  . Thanks

[BigSimonia]

 

Just to be clear that I've got this right.., if the fly ball lands untouched in foul territory,  it is dead, and ruled foul immediately. It would not matter if the ball landed, untouched in foul territory between home and third and then kicked fair, because it would be dead and declared foul the instant the ball touched the ground in foul territory due to the INT. Correct?

No: ordinarily, the ball is dead immediately on runner INT. We leave it live here in order to determine the fair/foul status, so that we can deal properly with the BR.

 

If the ball lands between HP and 3B, you'd defeat the purpose by killing it immediately. Landing does not determine its fair/foul status: the status is not determined until it is touched or comes to rest.

 

So leave it live until the fair/foul status is determined, whatever that takes.

 

So in effect you're treating this runner's interference as a delayed dead ball?