We got it/kicked it ... fair/foul ... Out, yes?

[The Man In Blue]

Runners on first and second, 2 outs, windy day. Batter pops up near third base. F5 sets up in fair territory pretty mush directly between second and third bases. She sees the wind is taking it foul, and starts to drift with it. Before she clears third base (into foul territory), R2 runs into her. Ball drops in foul territory.

It was clear cut interference (except my partner accidentally signaled obstruction) and we made that call easy. Nobody had any issue with that.

Who leads off the next inning?

(EDIT: I know what we did and I know the right call ... I want to see where this discussion goes. )

 

[MoJo]

Same batter is up the next inning if there is one.

The batter did not complete their AB.

The runner was the third out.

 

[DNeeld]

Same batter is up the next inning if there is one.

The batter did not complete their AB.

The runner was the third out.

Yep.

 

[Lemond]

Agree. Dead ball, foul ball unless it was a bunt attempt on two strikes.

 

[HunterMO]

Agree. Dead ball, foul ball unless it was a bunt attempt on two strikes.

Hell of a bunt attempt (per OP's description of the play)

 

[Northball]

And does the batter's count reset to 0-0 for the next inning?

 

[Lemond]

Hell of a bunt attempt (per OP's description of the play)

I’ve seen a few that could almost qualify.

 

[Lemond]

And does the batter's count reset to 0-0 for the next inning?

Yes.

 

[The Man In Blue]

Not as controversial as I had hoped ...

So here is what happened ... Several weeks ago we had our annual clinic and the instructor was going over the rules changes for 2023. He talked about the clarifications in the book language for interference occurring when the ball was over FOUL territory. He instructed (and we argued against) that the runner would be out on the interference but the batter runner would be put on first since it was interference.

We argued and argued that there was no possible way that could be the intent on a foul ball ... or that it was even what the rule said when we looked it up right then.

Anyway, the umpire I was sitting with (and we were the two calling it out because we are a couple of know-it-alls) was the umpire I was working with for this play this weekend.

We kicked it. We told them the next batter was up because "the batter had completed her at bat, and the interference was the third out."

We knew it was wrong. We still say it was wrong. It was what we were instructed to do.

 

[DNeeld]

We kicked it. We told them the next batter was up because "the batter had completed her at bat, and the interference was the third out."

That's bizarre! How are they figuring the AB is completed when the batter has neither reached a base safely nor been put out?