Marlins-Dodgers Interference Play

[basejester]

I kinda see what you're getting at, I just don't see any R1 throwing himself on the grenade to give B4 another swing. While some guys think pretty quick on their feet, this would almost need to be a practiced strategy. I can't imagine R1 being that much more reactionary than F3 in assessing the situation, observing his surroundings, deciding if the balll has a chance to be foul (not fair?), knowing that his actioon will give another swing, and still have time to "accidentally" INT. While it may be humanly possible, it's so unlikely that noone, not even true rats, will consider this enough of a possibility to make a designed play for it. I can't fathom the possibility of ever happening.

I agree. Even after all of the stars have aligned to make this strategy work, the defense can overcome it by intentionally walking the batter.

Edit: What he said.

[Jocko]

I just can't wrap my head around the "caused foul" and "not fair" schpeel. If it's not fair, it's foul. If, and I stress IF, F3 could possibly have touched it fair had there not been INT, thems the breaks. R3 out for INT, the ball was foulf, so B4 back to bat. I can't see it any other way. The definitive I asked for and was provided spelled it out crystal clear, yet we're still debating the trivialities. If the cosmic tumblers all fall into place and unlock the possibility of R3 becoming clairvoyant and "seeing" the result of his action being Bonds getting to swing again, and IF (no way in Hades) R3 decides to martyr himself..... see where I'm going?

[mstaylor]

There is fair/foul only, no such thing as "not fair" ,read what MLB said. Many including myself have been saying that exact thing, foul ball, R1 out on interference.

[Lindsay]

If the cosmic tumblers all fall into place and unlock the possibility of R3 becoming clairvoyant and "seeing" the result of his action being Bonds getting to swing again, and IF (no way in Hades) R3 decides to martyr himself..... see where I'm going?

That is the entire point, this one specific or similar play wherein the ball is airborne, has no status, is logically and realistically not yet fair and is prevented from becoming fair due to interference. R1/3 out for INT, B1 returns. Not a play that will be encountered remotely often, may not be seen for an entire season. Still and when it is, the Rules provide an opportunity to grant B1 an additional time at bat that may be in contrast to principles of sportsmanship; when such a play occurs, it is much better to have thoroughly discussed the play than to be caught off guard. "Not fair" is not a scoring decision a la fair/foul, it is the name given to the ball's state when no other category may apply. IFF, If Fair, for instance, is routinely called when a ball is not yet fair and may ultimately be either fair or foul.

"If you do not expect the unexpected you will not find it, for it is not to be reached by search or trail." Heraclitus

[mstaylor]

Every ball in the air is undetermined. It will eventually be fair/foul, caught or not caught.

[Jocko]

Holdup. Holdupholdupholdupholdup. Hold the eff up. It dawned on me exactly why your argument is invalid. When the ball is in F1s hand before release, it's already a strike. It has to prove to me that it's not. When the batted ball is in the air over fair territory, it's fair until it BECOMES foul. Bunted ball rolling down the line is FAIR until it BECOMES foul. A runner is safe until he becomes out.

It all comes down to perception, and I perceive that your balloon has popped, IMO. I'm just glad I was FINALLY able to explain why it made no sense. Hope this helps someone else debunk this misconception.

[johnnyg08]

So, have things changed around this play? 

If I recall, when PU signals fair, we have IFF and Runner Interference, two out.

Is that correct as of today? 

[Jimurray]

5 hours ago, johnnyg08 said:

So, have things changed around this play? 

If I recall, when PU signals fair, we have IFF and Runner Interference, two out.

Is that correct as of today? 

What causes you to ask today? MLB added the confirming interp to the infield fly definition in, I think, 2013. Is it not still there?

[johnnyg08]

1 minute ago, Jimurray said:

What causes you to ask today? MLB added the confirming interp to the infield fly definition in, I think, 2013. Is it not still there?

Today there was a discussion on facebook about a hypothetical scenario w/ basically this exact play and I recalled that there was quite the discussion here with regard to that play. Yep, this play I believe, caused the confirming interp to appear in the rule book the following year...correct?

 

[Jimurray]

23 minutes ago, johnnyg08 said:

Today there was a discussion on facebook about a hypothetical scenario w/ basically this exact play and I recalled that there was quite the discussion here with regard to that play. Yep, this play I believe, caused the confirming interp to appear in the rule book the following year...correct?

 

I believe the interp existed prior and was added to the book in 2013. That play probably was the cause of the addition to the book. Don't participate in baseball rules discussions on facebook

[johnnyg08]

1 minute ago, Jimurray said:

I believe the interp existed prior and was added to the book in 2013. That play probably was the cause of the addition to the book. Don't participate in baseball rules discussions on facebook

I think you are right on all accounts. 

[Lindsay]

It's now an official baseball rule.

Definition of Terms (Infield Fly) Comment: "If interference is called during an Infield Fly, the ball remains alive until it is determined whether the ball is fair or foul. If fair, both the runner who interfered with the fielder and the batter are out. If foul, even if caught, the runner is out and the batter returns to bat."

[johnnyg08]

I was attempting to create a timeline of sorts to determine if by rule, they Todd Tichenor and crew got this play correct at the time simply because I was wondering if this video actually inspired the language being added into the OBR.

If the ball was untouched at the time it hit the infield grass in fair territory, did Randazzo inadvertently signal it a fair ball? 

Did F2 touch the batted ball in flight over fair territory? 

The piece that likely confuses some umpires is that the ball ONLY remains live to determine fair or foul...as stated in the comment...even if the ball is caught over foul territory, the batter still returns to complete his time at bat. Whether the ball was caught or not...is irrelevant because it's already interference....but not like batter interference (not strike 3) on a runner stealing 2B where we wait to see if the runner is retired before enforcing a penalty.

 

 

 

[Jimurray]

48 minutes ago, johnnyg08 said:

I was attempting to create a timeline of sorts to determine if by rule, they Todd Tichenor and crew got this play correct at the time simply because I was wondering if this video actually inspired the language being added into the OBR.

If the ball was untouched at the time it hit the infield grass in fair territory, did Randazzo inadvertently signal it a fair ball? 

Did F2 touch the batted ball in flight over fair territory? 

The piece that likely confuses some umpires is that the ball ONLY remains live to determine fair or foul...as stated in the comment...even if the ball is caught over foul territory, the batter still returns to complete his time at bat. Whether the ball was caught or not...is irrelevant because it's already interference....but not like batter interference (not strike 3) on a runner stealing 2B where we wait to see if the runner is retired before enforcing a penalty.

 

 

 

If you peruse the thread you will see that I cited a 2001 PBUC ref from the BRD and 2010 WUM cite that confirmed the interp. Wendelstedt did, as others in this thread did have trouble with the interp. But Wendelstedt references the interp in the WUM as being the current correct way to call the play. The umpires got it right. What inspired MLB to put the interp into the rule book was all you confused umpires.

[Gfoley4]

55 minutes ago, johnnyg08 said:

I was attempting to create a timeline of sorts to determine if by rule, they Todd Tichenor and crew got this play correct at the time simply because I was wondering if this video actually inspired the language being added into the OBR.

If the ball was untouched at the time it hit the infield grass in fair territory, did Randazzo inadvertently signal it a fair ball? 

Did F2 touch the batted ball in flight over fair territory? 

The piece that likely confuses some umpires is that the ball ONLY remains live to determine fair or foul...as stated in the comment...even if the ball is caught over foul territory, the batter still returns to complete his time at bat. Whether the ball was caught or not...is irrelevant because it's already interference....but not like batter interference (not strike 3) on a runner stealing 2B where we wait to see if the runner is retired before enforcing a penalty.

 

 

 

Yes, this was definitely the reason MLB added the comment about waiting for fair/foul http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1536094-mlb-modifies-infield-fly-rule-in-wake-of-confusing-play-during-2012-season 

[johnnyg08]

I read the entire thread multiple times and I saw those things.