Situation along 1B line

[conbo61]

Had this the other day. FED rule set.

Batter lays down bunt along 1B line. Ball starts rolling foul and as batter is busting up the line, the pitcher comes racing over in front of the batter to touch the ball while in foul ground. The base path is dirt and there is a grass lip that could redirect the ball back toward fair territory.

If the ball is fair and there is a collision, you have interference. (In my situation there was no contact).

My question is with the ball in foul ground would you still have an interference call? My initial instinct is yes as I can not differentiate between this and someone who interferes with an F3 who is fielding a foul pop near the line.

Thoughts? Thank you.

[MidAmUmp]

I think you just did differentiate between them when you said a ball starts rolling foul (ground ball) and a foul pop near the line (fly ball).

The ground ball in foul territory needs something extra...potential to become fair or an intentional act by the B/R. The fly ball still has potential to be caught for an out regardless of if it's fair or foul so contact with a protected fielder on a fly ball is interference.

[ElkOil]

If a player touches a ball on the ground in foul territory, it's a foul ball. I don't see how there could be interference since there can't be a play on the BR.

[Rich Ives]

33 minutes ago, ElkOil said:

If a player touches a ball on the ground in foul territory, it's a foul ball. I don't see how there could be interference since there can't be a play on the BR.

Like this:

5.09 A runner is out

(9) After hitting or bunting a ball that continues to move over
foul territory, he intentionally deflects the course of the
ball in any manner while running to first base. The ball is
dead and no runners may advance;

[ElkOil]

4 minutes ago, Rich Ives said:

Like this:

5.09 A runner is out

(9) After hitting or bunting a ball that continues to move over
foul territory, he intentionally deflects the course of the
ball in any manner while running to first base. The ball is
dead and no runners may advance;

That didn't happen in the OP. I don't see the relevance.

[Kevin_K]

5 minutes ago, Rich Ives said:

Like this:

5.09 A runner is out

(9) After hitting or bunting a ball that continues to move over
foul territory, he intentionally deflects the course of the
ball in any manner while running to first base. The ball is
dead and no runners may advance;

Since the OP was about the BR interfering with a fielder making a play, how does this apply?

[conbo61]

8 hours ago, MidAmUmp said:

I think you just did differentiate between them when you said a ball starts rolling foul (ground ball) and a foul pop near the line (fly ball).

The ground ball in foul territory needs something extra...potential to become fair or an intentional act by the B/R. The fly ball still has potential to be caught for an out regardless of if it's fair or foul so contact with a protected fielder on a fly ball is interference.

This is the condition I was fuzzy on.  The protection is in place as long as the fielder has the opportunity to get an out and not just make a play on the ball to keep it foul.

Thank you.  I am smarter than when I woke up this morning.

[maven]

9 hours ago, MidAmUmp said:

The ground ball in foul territory needs something extra...potential to become fair or an intentional act by the B/R. The fly ball still has potential to be caught for an out regardless of if it's fair or foul so contact with a protected fielder on a fly ball is interference.

Once we get clear that there's a difference between interfering with a fielder and interfering with the ball, and that the OP is asking about the former...

This concept or philosophy is interpretation, not part of the rule. Hindering a fielder who is fielding a batted ball is not defined in terms of "fair batted ball," but any batted ball.

That said, I would apply MidAmUmp's philosophy and ground it in the rule this way: when the BR contacts a fielder who is trying to field a ground ball that ends up foul, then such contact will not constitute hindrance. No hindrance = no INT (though some other intentional act might be).

If the ground ball ends up fair, that contact WILL constitute hindrance and be INT. If the contact prevents the ball from becoming fair, I've probably got INT there too.

[conbo61]

8 minutes ago, maven said:

Once we get clear that there's a difference between interfering with a fielder and interfering with the ball, and that the OP is asking about the former...

This concept or philosophy is interpretation, not part of the rule. Hindering a fielder who is fielding a batted ball is not defined in terms of "fair batted ball," but any batted ball.

That said, I would apply MidAmUmp's philosophy and ground it in the rule this way: when the BR contacts a fielder who is trying to field a ground ball that ends up foul, then such contact will not constitute hindrance. No hindrance = no INT (though some other intentional act might be).

If the ground ball ends up fair, that contact WILL constitute hindrance and be INT. If the contact prevents the ball from becoming fair, I've probably got INT there too.

In this case, the grass lip could have re-directed the ball fair.  It was the intention of the pitcher to KEEP the ball foul. I interpreted MidAmUmp's reply as, if the fielder is hindered from getting an out, you have INT, if he can't (keeping ball foul) you have nothing. 

To expand upon your reply Maven, if the B/R and pitcher collide while the ball is foul and the ball THEN rolls fair, we have INT?

[maven]

9 minutes ago, conbo61 said:

In this case, the grass lip could have re-directed the ball fair.  It was the intention of the pitcher to KEEP the ball foul. I interpreted MidAmUmp's reply as, if the fielder is hindered from getting an out, you have INT, if he can't (keeping ball foul) you have nothing. 

To expand upon your reply Maven, if the B/R and pitcher collide while the ball is foul and the ball THEN rolls fair, we have INT?

I didn't think of that, but of course you're right. I see no reason we couldn't get INT on that: contact with F1 would hinder him, and we don't have to rule hindrance retroactively (if the ball stayed foul, say).

[conbo61]

10 minutes ago, maven said:

I didn't think of that, but of course you're right. I see no reason we couldn't get INT on that: contact with F1 would hinder him, and we don't have to rule hindrance retroactively (if the ball stayed foul, say).

Now this doesn't appear to be consistent with @MidAmUmp.  As noted, I am understanding that the INT protection is only in effect if the hindrance prevents the possibility of getting an out.  In this case, F1 was not attempting to get an out, but essentially create a dead ball situation.

I agree that if the ball then rolled fair we could not reasonably call a retroactive INT.

Apologies if I am not understanding here.  I am not trying to be a problem child, just get better.

[ALStripes17]

Now this doesn't appear to be consistent with@MidAmUmp.  As noted, I am understanding that the INT protection is only in effect if the hindrance prevents the possibility of getting an out.  In this case, F1 was not attempting to get an out, but essentially create a dead ball situation.
I agree that if the ball then rolled fair we could not reasonably call a retroactive INT.
Apologies if I am not understanding here.  I am not trying to be a problem child, just get better.

We don't judge intent by a fielder here. If the BR hindered the fielder in fielding a fair batted ball, it's interference.


If the batted ball is foul, there would be no hindrance.


We don't have any exceptions to discern "what was the ball's status when the INT occurred"... The end status of the ball determines whether or not hindrance occurred. Although I do consider that a fair-to-foul scenario may be treated differently than a foul-to- fair scenario.


In saying that, I could see a PU pointing at a potential INT and saying "That might be Interference!" and wait to see if the batted ball comes back into fair territory.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[conbo61]

28 minutes ago, ALStripes17 said:

We don't judge intent by a fielder here. If the BR hindered the fielder in fielding a fair batted ball, it's interference.


If the batted ball is foul, there would be no hindrance.


We don't have any exceptions to discern "what was the ball's status when the INT occurred"... The end status of the ball determines whether or not hindrance occurred. Although I do consider that a fair-to-foul scenario may be treated differently than a foul-to- fair scenario.


In saying that, I could see a PU pointing at a potential INT and saying "That might be Interference!" and wait to see if the batted ball comes back into fair territory.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
 

Just to clarify, you mean the status of the ground ball.  If F3 is fielding a pop on the line that is slightly foul and is hindered by the B/R, you still have an out.

[ALStripes17]

Just to clarify, you mean the status of the ground ball.  If F3 is fielding a pop on the line that is slightly foul and is hindered by the B/R, you still have an out.

Yes, absolutely...I figured the fly-ball part of the discussion was clear.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[ricka56]

Do we have a call like an IFF near the foul line
THAT's INTERFERENCE, IF FAIR ? 
It'd sound weird, but that's what it is. 

[ALStripes17]

Do we have a call like an IFF near the foul line
THAT's INTERFERENCE, IF FAIR ? 
It'd sound weird, but that's what it is. 

"That's interference if I don't like the offensive team!" ... ??? :

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[maineump]

1 hour ago, ricka56 said:

Do we have a call like an IFF near the foul line
THAT's INTERFERENCE, IF FAIR ? 
It'd sound weird, but that's what it is. 

I wouldn't say anything allow the play to play out and you can make the call if needed after.

[Rich Ives]

11 hours ago, ElkOil said:

That didn't happen in the OP. I don't see the relevance.

Because you said this:  

If a player touches a ball on the ground in foul territory, it's a foul ball. I don't see how there could be interference since there can't be a play on the BR.

[Rich Ives]

11 hours ago, Kevin_K said:

Since the OP was about the BR interfering with a fielder making a play, how does this apply?

Because Elk said:  

If a player touches a ball on the ground in foul territory, it's a foul ball. I don't see how there could be interference since there can't be a play on the BR.

 

Which is not true.  You CAN touch a foul ball and have interference called.

[maven]

3 minutes ago, Rich Ives said:

Because Elk said:  

If a player touches a ball on the ground in foul territory, it's a foul ball. I don't see how there could be interference since there can't be a play on the BR.

 

Which is not true.  You CAN touch a foul ball and have interference called.

I agree in principle, though I was thinking of it initially as LC was. But a fielder who is trying to reach a rolling foul ball before it can go fair might be hindered by a runner from doing so.

However, I'd have to see the play: if he ends up successfully ensuring that the ball is foul, I'd need a bit more to say he was hindered. Being late to a foul ball isn't hindrance the way being late to a fair ball is. So MidAmUmp is surely right that the bar is higher here.

[ElkOil]

1 hour ago, ALStripes17 said:

"That's interference if I don't like the offensive team!" ... ??? :

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
 

"That's offensive if I don't like the interference!"

[conbo61]

48 minutes ago, maven said:

I agree in principle, though I was thinking of it initially as LC was. But a fielder who is trying to reach a rolling foul ball before it can go fair might be hindered by a runner from doing so.

However, I'd have to see the play: if he ends up successfully ensuring that the ball is foul, I'd need a bit more to say he was hindered. Being late to a foul ball isn't hindrance the way being late to a fair ball is. So MidAmUmp is surely right that the bar is higher here.

The standard for the play I am attempting to describe is somewhat lower as the pitcher only needs to touch the ball to kill it.

If he touches the ball in foul territory, there is no more play therefore there can be no hindrance.  My question is if the DC would have a case to state that the collision/interference prevented his player from ensuring that the ball remained foul.

[maineump]

46 minutes ago, conbo61 said:

The standard for the play I am attempting to describe is somewhat lower as the pitcher only needs to touch the ball to kill it.

If he touches the ball in foul territory, there is no more play therefore there can be no hindrance.  My question is if the DC would have a case to state that the collision/interference prevented his player from ensuring that the ball remained foul.

If by chance the pitcher is hindered from keeping it foul and the ball rolls back fair, then you would have INT. If the ball stays foul, then no issue as the ball is foul and no INT. There is an answer for the DC either way -

Foul: your pitcher touched it in foul ground - it is foul

Questioning if prevented from keeping it foul: INT BR is out if the ball comes back fair

 

[Donny7]

Around and round it goes, where it stops... nobody knows.

" IT AIN'T NOTHIN TIL' YOU CALL IT! "   

No need to get in a hurry here. Yawn

[stkjock]

12 hours ago, conbo61 said:

In this case, the grass lip could have re-directed the ball fair.  It was the intention of the pitcher to KEEP the ball foul. I interpreted MidAmUmp's reply as, if the fielder is hindered from getting an out, you have INT, if he can't (keeping ball foul) you have nothing. 

To expand upon your reply Maven, if the B/R and pitcher collide while the ball is foul and the ball THEN rolls fair, we have INT?

Can you be certain of this, or was it your conclusion, based on experience?