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

[Strike2]

This tends to add to my belief that, when it comes to interference and obstruction, the rules and their application are a mess.

 

[The Man In Blue]

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

Because our clinician goofed it. There were language changes on a couple of interference related rules. He was saying that on an interference call the runner is placed at first base, even on a foul ball. Problem is, that isn't true.

This tends to add to my belief that, when it comes to interference and obstruction, the rules and their application are a mess.

I think the rules are pretty clear, but I'll agree the application can be messy based on the umpire. This wasn't the case for this. We knew what the call was / should have been. We went against that and went with the clinician's error ... what are the odds of the two umpires who were arguing against it actually having that play while working together?

 

[marriard]

I knew this one It was in one of the exams last year

 

[Strike2]

I think the rules are pretty clear, but I'll agree the application can be messy based on the umpire. This wasn't the case for this. We knew what the call was / should have been. We went against that and went with the clinician's error ... what are the odds of the two umpires who were arguing against it actually having that play while working together?

Your story is astounding...being taught an interpretation that is clearly not consistent with what, in this case, seems objectively clear in the written rule.

Speaking of "messy based on the umpire"...I saw an example of out-of-the-running-lane interference in a college game on Friday. Runner bunted...ball was fielded a few feet from Home on the 3B side. Runner ran in fair territory (both feet) the ENTIRE time to 1B. The throw hit her in the back just as she touched 1B. Call was "safe". Replay review initiated...frame-by-frame appeared to show ball hitting her just prior to her foot reaching the bag. Still safe. I don't know why the rule exists if THAT doesn't qualify.

 

[CoachJD]

Because our clinician goofed it. There were language changes on a couple of interference related rules. He was saying that on an interference call the runner is placed at first base, even on a foul ball. Problem is, that isn't true.

OK, so if I'm understanding the clinician's argument, if the play you described had happened exactly the same way but with 0 outs or 1 out, the batter-runner would've...been placed on first and the inning would continue with the next hitter in the lineup? Obviously that can't be correct. It doesn't make any sense at all.

 

[clarity]

There's a certain logic to it. If interference is immediate dead ball and the if the ball is over fair territory when the ball becomes dead, I can understand why you were instructed as you were.

 

[The Man In Blue]

OK, so if I'm understanding the clinician's argument, if the play you described had happened exactly the same way but with 0 outs or 1 out, the batter-runner would've...been placed on first and the inning would continue with the next hitter in the lineup? Obviously that can't be correct. It doesn't make any sense at all.

That's the argument, but it is wrong.

There's a certain logic to it. If interference is immediate dead ball and the if the ball is over fair territory when the ball becomes dead, I can understand why you were instructed as you were.

... and that is where the clarification/changed verbiage came in. It clarified the position of the ball at the time of the interference determines if it is foul or fair, not anything that happens afterwards.

 

[eddieq]

Not to beat a dead horse

@The Man In Blue May I ask which rules set your clinic was on? Looking at the USA book (2023 to be sure), I can see it sort of being confusing with the rule in 8-7-J(1-3) effect because it says the batter-runner is awarded first base. However, since it wasn't a fair ball - the batter never became the batter-runner so that effect doesn't apply.

USA Rules Supplement 33 (A-1-D) is pretty explicit that in this case, the batter is still up. So in your situation, the USA rules support that the batter remains at bat, but since the third out occurred before their at bat was completed, they lead off the next inning. They get a fresh count, too.

 

[jackfrost]

Because our clinician goofed it. There were language changes on a couple of interference related rules. He was saying that on an interference call the runner is placed at first base, even on a foul ball. Problem is, that isn't true.



I think the rules are pretty clear, but I'll agree the application can be messy based on the umpire. This wasn't the case for this. We knew what the call was / should have been. We went against that and went with the clinician's error ... what are the odds of the two umpires who were arguing against it actually having that play while working together?

Its not clear what rule set but if USA rules this could result in 2 outs. RS 33 says the following:
"If interference occurs by the runner on a foul fly ball not caught but, in the umpire’s judgment, could have been caught with ordinary effort had interference not occurred, the runner is out and the batter is also out. " This is also stated in Rule 8.7.J.3.F
USA rule on this is different from most other rule sets where you would only get 1 out.

 

[The Man In Blue]

That may explain the confusion … NFHS clinic with a clinician who does a lot of USA also. (USA clinic piggybacked afterwards.)