Interference by Runner: Effect on Batter

[Greatdaytobeawildcat]

Post 2 is USA rules paraphrased

 

[Crabby_Bob]

As I said earlier, I do not have the USA code in front of me. Can one of the others find the applicable rule?

But this is the NFHS rule:


NFHS ( I know OP was USA, but will wager rules are the same in this case)

[snip]

You would lose that wager.

 

[Crabby_Bob]

Post 2 is USA rules paraphrased

And this is correct.
Citing NFHS may be useful as a mental exercise but the OP clearly stated USA rules.

8.7 The runner is out:
J. when a runner interferes:
1. With a fielder attempting to field a batted fair ball or foul fly ball,
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.

IMHO, the clear intent of the rule is that a runner interfering with a fielder attempting to catch a routine fly ball, fair or foul, results in the removal of the runner AND the end of the batter's turn at bat. The OP stated B7 was the batter. B8 leads off in the next inning.

 

[EdLovrich]

Thank you for posting the actual wording of the rule in USA

 

[The Man In Blue]

And this is correct.
Citing NFHS may be useful as a mental exercise but the OP clearly stated USA rules.

8.7 The runner is out:
J. when a runner interferes:
1. With a fielder attempting to field a batted fair ball or foul fly ball,
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.

IMHO, the clear intent of the rule is that a runner interfering with a fielder attempting to catch a routine fly ball, fair or foul, results in the removal of the runner AND the end of the batter's turn at bat. The OP stated B7 was the batter. B8 leads off in the next inning.

Hmm. What if the interference is the third out? I can’t call the batter out, too. You can only get a “fourth out” on an appeal.

 

[PDM]

TMIB, if there is contact between the runner and the fielder, you would need to call the interference even if the ball were caught. It makes a difference as to who is out. I know your argument is that there was no interference if the ball ends up being caught, but that is like arguing that a foul in basketball isn't a foul if the basket is made.

Sure, the situations are similar, but that doesn't mean that the rule is written the same way for both situations (in two different sports).

 

[radness]

J. when a runner interferes:
1. With a fielder attempting to field a batted fair ball or foul fly ball,
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.








IMHO, the clear intent of the rule is that a runner interfering with a fielder attempting to catch a routine fly ball, fair or foul, results in the removal of the runner AND the end of the batter's turn at bat. The OP stated B7 was the batter. B8 leads off in the next inning.

☝

 

[EdLovrich]

8.7 The runner is out:
J. when a runner interferes:
1. With a fielder attempting to field a batted fair ball or foul fly ball,
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.

IMHO, the clear intent of the rule is that a runner interfering with a fielder attempting to catch a routine fly ball, fair or foul, results in the removal of the runner AND the end of the batter's turn at bat. The OP stated B7 was the batter. B8 leads off in the next inning.

First, thank you for giving the verbatim wording of the rule in question, and yes, I lost the wager that the rules are essentially the same.

That being said we have a couple of issues still. First, the OP does not state whether or not the fielder caught the ball with 'routine' effort. This is very much a part of the rule for awarding the second out, but I was not there so have no idea if it was routine or not.

The second issue is the more problematic even if the play was 'routine'. As has already been alluded to, the only time an 'apparent fourth out' can be recognized is on an appeal play. With that understanding and the step by step application of rules we have the following:

Runner causes interference with the fielder, immediate dead ball at this point regardless of when the interference is called. Runner is out for the third out. End of half inning by rule. The catch (routine or otherwise) never happens as far as the game is concerned, so it cannot be ruled either routine or not. Therefore, the B7, as far as I can tell, would still lead off the next inning since she did not complete her at bat.

Unless there is an interpretation that addresses this and gives a definitive answer, I do not see any way to justify calling the batter out. I am not a USA umpire so I do not have access to the case book/interpretations nor do I have contact info for rules interpreters. If any of the other umpires do have such access, I think this is a question that should be answered. Thanks in advance for anyone who can pursue an official ruling.

 

[jackfrost]

The second issue is the more problematic even if the play was 'routine'. As has already been alluded to, the only time an 'apparent fourth out' can be recognized is on an appeal play. With that understanding and the step by step application of rules we have the following:

Runner causes interference with the fielder, immediate dead ball at this point regardless of when the interference is called. Runner is out for the third out. End of half inning by rule. The catch (routine or otherwise) never happens as far as the game is concerned, so it cannot be ruled either routine or not. Therefore, the B7, as far as I can tell, would still lead off the next inning since she did not complete her at bat.

Unless there is an interpretation that addresses this and gives a definitive answer, I do not see any way to justify calling the batter out. I am not a USA umpire so I do not have access to the case book/interpretations nor do I have contact info for rules interpreters. If any of the other umpires do have such access, I think this is a question that should be answered. Thanks in advance for anyone who can pursue an official ruling.

A question for you. R1 on 2B with 2 outs. Batter B4 hits ground ball to F6 but F6 is interfered with by R1. R1 is out for the 3rd out. Do you let B4 lead off the next inning? I don't think you would do that. But by you logic B4 would not be out and should lead off the next inning.

 

[EdLovrich]

In the case you pose, B4 is awarded first base by FC per rule and has completed her at-bat. In the OP, the batter hits a foul ball and has not completed her at bat