Does this run score?

[rhinolith]

NFHS rules

Bases loaded, two out. Batter hits a pop up on 3B line, not very high but with a lot of spin. F1 and F5 both attempt to catch the fly but neither do and neither touch the ball. Ball lands foul about 2 feet from the line and is rolling slowly toward fair territory. R3 was moving on the pitch and easily touched home before I could rule fair/foul. R3 then thinks it was probably a foul ball (it’s still rolling and is near the foul line) and stops and picks up the slowly rolling ball thinking he is being helpful. I call him out for interference and he’s the third out.

This league typically does not paint foul lines so I am eyeballing it as to fair/foul. When he touched the ball, I believe it was foul but still had enough rolling momentum to make it to the invisible foul line.

Question: does his run score? 

Thank you for your help.

 

[BigBlue4u]

50 minutes ago, rhinolith said:

This league typically does not paint foul lines so I am eyeballing it as to fair/foul. When he touched the ball, I believe it was foul but still had enough rolling momentum to make it to the invisible foul line.

Under the circumstances, I would just call it foul and not eject the base runner.  With no foul lines, it would be difficult for a base runner, who shouldn't be touching the ball anyway, to determine if the ball was fair or foul.  The safe way out of this protentional mess, is to call it foul and advise the runner not to be touching the ball. The run would not score since it's a foul ball.  As a side note, how can you play with no foul lines?  In my entire career, I've never seen a field with no foul lines.  Foul lines are a basic part of the layout of the field.

[maven]

1 hour ago, rhinolith said:

R3 was moving on the pitch and easily touched home before I could rule fair/foul. R3 then thinks it was probably a foul ball (it’s still rolling and is near the foul line) and stops and picks up the slowly rolling ball thinking he is being helpful. I call him out for interference and he’s the third out.

Hm. We have 7-4-1i, which states the batter is out for doing this. No other rule quite covers it.

One option would have been to rule it a foul ball, and send R3 back to 3B. That would solve the title question.

If you have to get INT, it would be retired runner INT. Score the run, and call out R2 for the INT. But I don't like allowing the offense to benefit from this.

[rhinolith]

3 hours ago, BigBlue4u said:

Under the circumstances, I would just call it foul and not eject the base runner.  With no foul lines, it would be difficult for a base runner, who shouldn't be touching the ball anyway, to determine if the ball was fair or foul.  The safe way out of this protentional mess, is to call it foul and advise the runner not to be touching the ball. The run would not score since it's a foul ball.  As a side note, how can you play with no foul lines?  In my entire career, I've never seen a field with no foul lines.  Foul lines are a basic part of the layout of the field.

It’s relatively common in Hawaii to not have lines in community leagues because Dolomark is difficult/costly to get.

The safest thing to have done was to call foul and lecture the runner. But with my luck, the next pitch would have been hit for a grand slam and then the defensive coach would be up in arms. 
 

 

 

[Senor Azul]

Wasn't the interference committed by the runner, R3 not the batter? So 7-4-1i wouldn't be the applicable rule, right? And why would R3's run count?

The batted ball was always foul right up to and including the moment it was touched and killed by R3. So his run was scored on an uncaught foul ball. It was not a legally scored run.

Since he didn't legally score it would not be retired (scored) runner interference--just runner interference. And the irony is that his interference actually prevents his run from becoming legal on a batted fair ball. Because all runners including the batter-runner probably would have been safe if the ball became a fair ball.

[rhinolith]

2 hours ago, maven said:

Hm. We have 7-4-1i, which states the batter is out for doing this. No other rule quite covers it.

One option would have been to rule it a foul ball, and send R3 back to 3B. That would solve the title question.

If you have to get INT, it would be retired runner INT. Score the run, and call out R2 for the INT. But I don't like allowing the offense to benefit from this.

I agree: I didn’t want the offense to benefit from the mistake. 

[rhinolith]

2 minutes ago, Senor Azul said:

Wasn't the interference committed by the runner, R3 not the batter? So 7-4-1i wouldn't be the applicable rule, right? And why would R3's run count?

The batted ball was always foul right up to and including the moment it was touched and killed by R3. So his run was scored on an uncaught foul ball. It was not a legally scored run.

Since he didn't legally score it would not be retired (scored) runner interference--just runner interference. And the irony is that his interference actually prevents his run from becoming legal on a batted fair ball. Because all runners including the batter-runner probably would have been safe if the ball became a fair ball.

This makes perfect sense and is very helpful. Thank you.

[beerguy55]

Since it was foul, the run can't score.  It would be an interesting conversation if you ruled it fair and he did the same thing. (retired runner interference for third out...the would by extension make R2 out...and would it be considered a force, cancelling the run?)

It's runner interference IMO.  Third out, foul ball, no run.

[MadMax]

11 hours ago, rhinolith said:

I agree: I didn’t want the offense to benefit from the mistake. 

I’ll play the other side of the coin –

The defense had two cracks at it (F1 & F5) not only to catch it as a pop fly, but to “keep” it a foul ball, if they had touched it, even inadvertently, on its descent or its subsequent rolling across the ground. It’s not like R3 interfered with either F1 or F5 directly… or even indirectly… they were likely well away from it after Keystone Cop’ing it. It’s also not like (from the description) the fielders were huddled over it, to see where it would end up, and the (scored) R3 elbowed between them to say, “Pardon me, chaps, allow me to pick up this ball for you.” 

Why is the defense benefitting from amateur ineptitude? 

Granted, we can’t score the run. The ball had yet to be determined as Fair or Foul, right? So with a batted ball that had yet to be determined F/F, the Batter-Runner never achieved 1B (technically) before the 3rd out was made, so no runs… can… score (in JV’s voice from HWUS). 

I can agree to the interpretation / judgement of calling INT, 3rd Out (and no runs), inning over… but by the same token, I can – because these are amateurs in a non-sanctioned game – also endorse the “call it Foul and admonish the kid” interpretation too. 
 

You’re in Hawaii?? 😳 Boy, you’ve got it rough. Back to midwestern sandpit baseball fer me! 

[noumpere]

9 minutes ago, MadMax said:

Ithe Batter-Runner never achieved 1B (technically) before the 3rd out was made, so no runs… can… score

 

That's not the rule.  It's only when the B or BR makes the third out before reaching first that this rule applies, so unless you are calling BR out for R3's actions, you'll have to find a different rule.

[Mudisfun]

16 hours ago, BigBlue4u said:

Under the circumstances, I would just call it foul and not eject the base runner.  With no foul lines, it would be difficult for a base runner, who shouldn't be touching the ball anyway, to determine if the ball was fair or foul.  The safe way out of this protentional mess, is to call it foul and advise the runner not to be touching the ball. The run would not score since it's a foul ball.  As a side note, how can you play with no foul lines?  In my entire career, I've never seen a field with no foul lines.  Foul lines are a basic part of the layout of the field.

Welcome to summer baseball in much of Orange County... HS's rent out their fields, but don't provide any field maintenance items, other than a drag... and not always that. Chalk or painted lines are often imaginary. Makes it fun when U1 SHOULD go out on a F/F ball but has to come in and pivot since he has no frame of reference to make a ruling. PU has to line up 1st and the foul pole to have a chance of getting the call.

[The Man in Blue]

🤬 "Blue, that ball was clearly foul!"

"Coach, I had it on the fair side of the line."

😡"There is no line!"

"Precisely, so why are you out here again?"

[beerguy55]

4 hours ago, MadMax said:

The ball had yet to be determined as Fair or Foul, right?

Any human touching the ball in foul territory makes it foul. R3's action made it foul.  That's all we need for the "does the run score" question.

Calling him out or giving him a "don't do that" are secondary and both are supportable, either by rule or FP&CS.

I think it's more interesting if it was fair when he picked it up.

[MadMax]

On 6/12/2023 at 10:15 AM, noumpere said:

That's not the rule.  It's only when the B or BR makes the third out before reaching first that this rule applies, so unless you are calling BR out for R3's actions, you'll have to find a different rule.

On this specific play, with bases loaded, and a batted ball? I’m not referencing the rule in general, I’m referring to this play specifically. 

[maven]

38 minutes ago, MadMax said:

On this specific play, with bases loaded, and a batted ball? I’m not referencing the rule in general, I’m referring to this play specifically. 

A general rule has to be applied to this play specifically.

For those who want this to be INT: please quote a rule that dictates that infraction for this act. Even our premier rule chopper hasn't done that yet in this thread.

The only (FED) rule that applies to a runner touching a batted ball that "has a chance" to be fair is the one that I cited, and I noted that it applies to the BR. My point was that the provision is inapplicable to the OP, in light of the runner being R3 and not the BR (I might have been more explicit in stating my point, I admit).

If a batted ball touches R3 in foul ground (R3 not intentionally touching it), we just have a foul ball. If R3 picks up the same batted ball that's rolling/spinning foul, are we ruling that INT? On what basis? And if that's just a foul ball + don't do that, what difference does it make whether R3 has scored?

I don't like INT here for the same reason Max hinted at: R3 didn't hinder the defense. If anything, it's an act against interest, because R3 should want that to be a fair ball.

We shouldn't let optics dictate fair play or common sense.

[The Man in Blue]

However, if that ball was headed fair, the scored runner (R3) prevented the defense from having an opportunity to make a play.  That is a key part of interference.

That brings us to the bridge we must cross … what is “the opportunity to make a play?”  It does not say “the opportunity to make a successful play.”

I’ll break the book out when I get home.

[beerguy55]

4 hours ago, maven said:

I don't like INT here for the same reason Max hinted at: R3 didn't hinder the defense. If anything, it's an act against interest, because R3 should want that to be a fair ball.

I do agree, but I think we're making an assumption, reasonable as it may be, that there is no play on R1, R2 or BR.   If there was a play (eg. batter slipped and fell in batter's box) we do have hindrance, right?  Or if R3 did it on his way to home, intentionally, for whatever reason, to keep the ball foul.

FED may only have the B/R provision, because it's the B/R that's most likely to want the ball to stay foul.  Can we use 8-4-1g?  Call it hindering the fielder's attempt to field the batted ball (which doesn't have to be fair)??

OBR does have the provision for both batter or runner - "He intentionally deflects the course of a foul ball in any manner;" so there is at least  one rule set has anticipated this event.

[MadMax]

2 hours ago, beerguy55 said:

If there was a play (eg. batter slipped and fell in batter's box) we do have hindrance, right?  Or if R3 did it on his way to home, intentionally, for whatever reason, to keep the ball foul.

But he didn’t. 

Both F1 and F5 had full, unhindered, unimpeded shots at it, and failed to touch it. R3 scores (by touching the plate), and makes the boneheaded gaff of picking up the ball as he returns back to 3B, likely under the assumption – however mistaken – that the ball was (deemed) Foul (already) by both F1’s and F5’s failed attempts at catching it in Foul territory, and its subsequent location – albeit still rolling – in Foul territory. By touching it, he just defined it as Foul, and negated his scored run. 

So the offense would never have been able to benefit from it anyway. 

In the amateur game, there doesn’t have to be the super-max penalty – “the full extent of the law (rule)” – especially when we have to go looking (rather deep) for a rule to apply to it. Common sense and fair play. 

[beerguy55]

1 hour ago, MadMax said:

But he didn’t. 

Both F1 and F5 had full, unhindered, unimpeded shots at it, and failed to touch it. R3 scores (by touching the plate), and makes the boneheaded gaff of picking up the ball as he returns back to 3B, likely under the assumption – however mistaken – that the ball was (deemed) Foul (already) by both F1’s and F5’s failed attempts at catching it in Foul territory, and its subsequent location – albeit still rolling – in Foul territory. By touching it, he just defined it as Foul, and negated his scored run. 

So the offense would never have been able to benefit from it anyway. 

In the amateur game, there doesn’t have to be the super-max penalty – “the full extent of the law (rule)” – especially when we have to go looking (rather deep) for a rule to apply to it. Common sense and fair play. 

Remember, the first words of my post were "I do agree" - R3 only hurt his team with his action..."foul ball - don't do that".

I'm asking purely in the context of rule support in a plausible alternate scenario -   ie. how would/could you rule if, everything else equal, there was a play to be had?

According to maven's post, the rule in FED only applies to the batter/runner, and there is no equivalent for other runners, so, according to the letter of the FED rule, R3 can intentionally kick a batted foul ball without penalty (eg. to prevent it going fair, to prevent a play on another runner)

OBR there is clear rule support to call R3 out. In FED I'm asking if you use the batter/runner rule to extrapolate applicability to R3, do you use 8-4-1g...or is it nothing but a foul ball, by rule? 

[noumpere]

20 hours ago, MadMax said:

On this specific play, with bases loaded, and a batted ball? I’m not referencing the rule in general, I’m referring to this play specifically. 

Yes.

 

it's NEVER the rule that "if the third out is made before the BR reaches first, no runs can score."  It's ALWAYS the rule that "If THE BR makes the third out before HE reaches first, no runs can score."

[Senor Azul]

From the 2013 Wendelstedt manual (section 5.5, p. 67):

...except that a run will not be scored if a runner advances to home base on a play in which the third out (or apparent fourth out) is made:

On the batter, on the batter-runner's caught fly ball, or on a play where the batter becomes a runner and before he reaches first base.