Jump to content

Marlins-Dodgers Interference Play


Lindsay
Umpire-Empire locks topics which have not been active in the last year. The thread you are viewing hasn't been active in 2477 days so you will not be able to post. We do recommend you starting a new topic to find out what's new in the world of umpiring.

Recommended Posts

Yes, actually. INT kills the play, meaning the IFF cannot be enforced as the INT occurs prior to the ball achieving fair/foul status. Recall that IFF must be fair; if the ball is dead in the air, before it is fair by virtue of passing 1st/3rd or being touched on fair territory, the criteria for IFF are not met. Therefore, we have one out on the interference, which results in an immediate dead ball, and eliminates the possibility of a second out. Strictly by rule, the batter cannot be awarded first base because he never became a runner and therefore never completed his time at bat under 6.04. Had he completed his at bat, he would have hit a fair ball. Had he hit a fair ball, he would have been out under IFF. Again, IFF is a red herring because the ball was not fair prior to it becoming dead.

Wendelstedt acknowledges only one out may be called on this play, though this play is also considered one of OBR's contradictions, with Wendelstedt saying: "We have made the suggestion that the definitions of fair and foul balls be edited to include that a ball become fair or foul when a batted ball in flight is over fair or foul territory when interference occurs. This, we believe, would solve the contradictions in the rulebook, and offer a solution that falls within the spirit of the rules."

Under present rules, the ball is not fair when interference occurs and therefore, R1 is out and B1 is returned to the plate as his time at bat was never legally completed by virtue of hitting a fair ball.

As Vin Scully initially said, "Hold everything, forget the play. Forget the play ... The play is dead because of the [interference] at first base."

2.00, 6.05(e), 6.09, 7.08(b ), 7.09, 7.09(j)

Whoa. So you're saying the, regardless of where a fly ball is hit, if interference occurs, kill the play, call the interfering runner out and put the batter back at the plate? Ex. - Pop fly to F6, R2 trucks F6, ball falls to the ground. You're calling R2 out ONLY, and batter back at the plate?

Seriously? C'mon!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe there was a directive some years back that said leave it live to determine the fate of the ball. The problem is I don't know what the count was before so I don't if they added a strike, plus if it was two strikes we wouldn't know.

Pitch #4 was the IFF if fair. Whoever does the pitch by pitch had it foul.

1 93 Sinker Swinging Strike 2 80 Slider Ball 3 95 Fastball (Four-seam) Foul 4 81 Slider Foul 5 81 Slider

In play, out(s)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's how I see it there is a pop up for an infield fly. It has been called, ball remains live.

The INT occurs, which is an immediate dead ball, so the initial call of IFF does not get to play itself out and you are left w/ the INT only.

Now I can see a situation where if the umpires believe the INT prevented a potential DP they would get 2 outs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, actually. INT kills the play, meaning the IFF cannot be enforced as the INT occurs prior to the ball achieving fair/foul status. Recall that IFF must be fair; if the ball is dead in the air, before it is fair by virtue of passing 1st/3rd or being touched on fair territory, the criteria for IFF are not met. Therefore, we have one out on the interference, which results in an immediate dead ball, and eliminates the possibility of a second out. Strictly by rule, the batter cannot be awarded first base because he never became a runner and therefore never completed his time at bat under 6.04. Had he completed his at bat, he would have hit a fair ball. Had he hit a fair ball, he would have been out under IFF. Again, IFF is a red herring because the ball was not fair prior to it becoming dead.

Wendelstedt acknowledges only one out may be called on this play, though this play is also considered one of OBR's contradictions, with Wendelstedt saying: "We have made the suggestion that the definitions of fair and foul balls be edited to include that a ball become fair or foul when a batted ball in flight is over fair or foul territory when interference occurs. This, we believe, would solve the contradictions in the rulebook, and offer a solution that falls within the spirit of the rules."

Under present rules, the ball is not fair when interference occurs and therefore, R1 is out and B1 is returned to the plate as his time at bat was never legally completed by virtue of hitting a fair ball.

As Vin Scully initially said, "Hold everything, forget the play. Forget the play ... The play is dead because of the [interference] at first base."

2.00, 6.05(e), 6.09, 7.08(b ), 7.09, 7.09(j)

Whoa. So you're saying the, regardless of where a fly ball is hit, if interference occurs, kill the play, call the interfering runner out and put the batter back at the plate? Ex. - Pop fly to F6, R2 trucks F6, ball falls to the ground. You're calling R2 out ONLY, and batter back at the plate?

Seriously? C'mon!

While Gil quotes the Wendelstedt school in 2010 their 2010 manual had this Reference Play in it (P387):

Bases loaded, one out, no count. The batter hits the next pitch high in the area

over the area around third base. As the third baseman positions himself under

the ball, the umpire declares, "Infield fly, if fair!" Just as the ball is falling, R3

collides with the third baseman while (a) the ball is over fair territory (B) the

ball is over foul territory.

When R3 runs into the third baseman, he has committed interference, and

the umpire should call "time" immediately. In all scenarios, R3 is out for

interference. In (a), the BR is called out for the infield fly, and all other

runners would return to their bases. ln (B), the BR is returned to the plate

with an 0-1 count. The ball became foul the moment interference occurred,

and cannot be an infield fly any longer. All other runners would be returned

to their bases.

I don't know if they are calling the ball foul or fair in the air at the time of INT. What the BRD says the PBUC wanted in 2001 was to wait to see the status of the ball after the INT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's how I see it there is a pop up for an infield fly. It has been called, ball remains live.

The INT occurs, which is an immediate dead ball, so the initial call of IFF does not get to play itself out and you are left w/ the INT only.

Now I can see a situation where if the umpires believe the INT prevented a potential DP they would get 2 outs.

I don't see ANY way in this scenario where the batter would be left at bat if the ball is dead immediately where it lands in fair territory. If interference is called, R1 (in this case) is out and BR gets 1st.

Now, Gil says the IFF has yet to be declared - OK - but the batter has still hit the ball. What happens to the count? Add a ball or a strike? No pitch?

The BRD/PBUC seems to make the most sense, since the play needs to be considered when addressing the status of the batter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To add a wrinkle, Wendlestedt might have the right approach. The interference took away the possibilty of catching a fair infield fly. So determining the status of the ball at the time of inteference would result in a ball that was in flight above fair territory. In the OP this would result in the batter being out on the IF and the runner being out on the INT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is the difference between "Infield Fly" and "Infield Fly, if Fair." --- "Infield Fly" is a fair fly ball, by rule, which means that a routine pop up to second base will probably be declared "Infield Fly," (due to the apparent nature that the batted ball is fair) and you'll have B1 out, followed by dead ball, R1 for interference. By rule, "Infield Fly" is declared when "it seems apparent that a batted ball will be an Infield Fly": When "Infield Fly" is declared, the batter is out, so yes, if the fly will obviously be fair, IFF can be invoked.

"Infield Fly, if Fair" on the other hand, is not a declaration of "Infield Fly," for the very reason that "if Fair" is a condition for which the "Infield Fly" may be declared. Once the ball is adjudged to be fair, only then does "Infield Fly, if Fair" become "Infield Fly," and the batter declared out. Until we receive that determination, we don't have an Infield Fly. It does seem like a harmless distiction ("IFF" vs. "IFF, if fair"), but that harmless distinction makes all the difference here.

Infield Fly = Batter-Runner Out

Infield Fly, if Fair = Batter not yet a runner, no out

Infield Fly, if Fair => Fair Ball = Batter-Runner Out

Infield Fly, if Fair => Foul Ball = Foul Ball

"Not Fair" does not equal "Foul Ball"

A ball that is "Not Fair" may also satisfy "Apparent that a batted ball will be an Infield Fly" (e.g., "Infield Fly", BR is out), though a ball that is "Not Fair" may also not yet satisfy "Apparent that a batted ball will be an Infield Fly" (e.g., we're still "if Fair," batter is not yet a runner, is not yet out)

So if the umpires judged that at the moment of interference, "Infield Fly" was declared (or, in other words, the umpires deemed it "apparent that a batted ball will be an Infield Fly," or probable fair ball), then we have an IFF situation. On the other hand, if the umpires judged that at the moment of interference, we're still "Infield Fly, if Fair" or the ball still had yet to achieve a probable status of fair/foul, we're having B1 hit again.

Yes, B1 hit the ball, but the only way this interp works with B1 hitting again, is if umpires rule the batted ball was not fair, which takes away the critereon under 6.09(a) for the batter to become a batter-runner. If the batter has not yet become a runner or been put out (and we're not in a walk-off or inning-ending situation), he has not completed his time at bat (6.04), which means he is still entitled to complete the AB.

For this reason, it appears to me the umpires did not rule this a fair ball or probable fair ball prior to the interference, which, given Randazzo's call of "fair" when the ball did carom into foul territory, suggests that on the field, the play was killed upon the interference, which is supported by "the ball is dead" comments for offensive interference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All I can tell Gil is the U1 did not show he was killing the ball. He very definitely pointed up for the IFF, then pointed at the interference. It would be nice to know what they finally called but it certainly looked like interference and foul ball. They obviously didn't call it fair or the BR would have been out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The mechanics were incorrect, though with this one-in-1,000 play, that's understandable. Though play should have been killed, it's likewise understandable to play it out, just in case you'll be going with that result after a conference (for whatever reason). In the box score, it will show up as "Interference/Foul Ball" as there is no official scoring for a batted, "Not Fair Ball," which is killed upon interference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is the difference between "Infield Fly" and "Infield Fly, if Fair." --- "Infield Fly" is a fair fly ball, by rule, which means that a routine pop up to second base will probably be declared "Infield Fly," (due to the apparent nature that the batted ball is fair) and you'll have B1 out, followed by dead ball, R1 for interference. By rule, "Infield Fly" is declared when "it seems apparent that a batted ball will be an Infield Fly": When "Infield Fly" is declared, the batter is out, so yes, if the fly will obviously be fair, IFF can be invoked.

"Infield Fly, if Fair" on the other hand, is not a declaration of "Infield Fly," for the very reason that "if Fair" is a condition for which the "Infield Fly" may be declared. Once the ball is adjudged to be fair, only then does "Infield Fly, if Fair" become "Infield Fly," and the batter declared out. Until we receive that determination, we don't have an Infield Fly. It does seem like a harmless distiction ("IFF" vs. "IFF, if fair"), but that harmless distinction makes all the difference here.

Infield Fly = Batter-Runner Out

Infield Fly, if Fair = Batter not yet a runner, no out

Infield Fly, if Fair => Fair Ball = Batter-Runner Out

Infield Fly, if Fair => Foul Ball = Foul Ball

"Not Fair" does not equal "Foul Ball"

A ball that is "Not Fair" may also satisfy "Apparent that a batted ball will be an Infield Fly" (e.g., "Infield Fly", BR is out), though a ball that is "Not Fair" may also not yet satisfy "Apparent that a batted ball will be an Infield Fly" (e.g., we're still "if Fair," batter is not yet a runner, is not yet out)

So if the umpires judged that at the moment of interference, "Infield Fly" was declared (or, in other words, the umpires deemed it "apparent that a batted ball will be an Infield Fly," or probable fair ball), then we have an IFF situation. On the other hand, if the umpires judged that at the moment of interference, we're still "Infield Fly, if Fair" or the ball still had yet to achieve a probable status of fair/foul, we're having B1 hit again.

Yes, B1 hit the ball, but the only way this interp works with B1 hitting again, is if umpires rule the batted ball was not fair, which takes away the critereon under 6.09(a) for the batter to become a batter-runner. If the batter has not yet become a runner or been put out (and we're not in a walk-off or inning-ending situation), he has not completed his time at bat (6.04), which means he is still entitled to complete the AB.

For this reason, it appears to me the umpires did not rule this a fair ball or probable fair ball prior to the interference, which, given Randazzo's call of "fair" when the ball did carom into foul territory, suggests that on the field, the play was killed upon the interference, which is supported by "the ball is dead" comments for offensive interference.

I'm confused but it appears to me that some rationalizing is taking place. The ball is not always dead on INT. It is addressed in CI and Umpire interference in the rules. You wait to see what happens. The PBUC wanted to wait to see what happens. Wendelstedt wants to judge what will happen while the ball is in the air. If you call IFF but neglect if fair because you forget that there is a howling wind blowing in from LF the results of the play should be different? Now we are getting to 1 in 10,000. The guys on the field did a good job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All I can tell Gil is the U1 did know show he was killing the ball. He very definitely pointed up for the IFF, then pointed at the interference. It would be nice to know what they finally called but it certainly looked like interference and foul ball. They obviously didn't call it fair or the BR would have been out.

no.. all U1 did was point to the INT and IFF.. he didnt kill the play..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All I can tell Gil is the U1 did know show he was killing the ball. He very definitely pointed up for the IFF, then pointeU1 d at the interference. It would be nice to know what they finally called but it certainly looked like interference and foul ball. They obviously didn't call it fair or the BR would have been out.

no.. all U1 did was point to the INT and IFF.. he didnt kill the play..

Yeah, I fixed my post. It should have said,"U1 did not kill the play." For some reason I typed know instead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is the difference between "Infield Fly" and "Infield Fly, if Fair." --- "Infield Fly" is a fair fly ball, by rule, which means that a routine pop up to second base will probably be declared "Infield Fly," (due to the apparent nature that the batted ball is fair) and you'll have B1 out, followed by dead ball, R1 for interference. By rule, "Infield Fly" is declared when "it seems apparent that a batted ball will be an Infield Fly": When "Infield Fly" is declared, the batter is out, so yes, if the fly will obviously be fair, IFF can be invoked.

Sorry Gil I dont quite follow this. Are you saying that if the pop up is out by second base and the umpire calls "infield fly" (no "if fair") and the ball somehow drops and spins back past the foul line the batter is still out?

If so, then your wrong.

The "if fair" call is just part of the mechanic. Its really implied in all the calls even if its not said. The ball must end up fair (by being touched or settling or passing 1b or 3b ...) for the rule to be in effect.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In all scenarios, the ball must be fair. "Infield Fly" is the only legal declaration, by rule, that instantaneously results in an out. Adding "if fair" requires the ball be judged fair. Only then can the sole condition of "IFF, IF" be satisfied, upon which, "IFF, IF" becomes simply "IFF," which is an out.

If a false Infield Fly is declared (such as which becomes a foul ball), the batter is not out on the incorrect mechanic and call.

Rule 6.05(e): Batter is out when "Infield Fly is declared."

Not when "Infield Fly, if fair" is declared. It must be "Infield Fly."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gil

It also doesn't allow for an improperly called IFF, declaring it when it doesn't meet the conditions does not make you out. As Rich posted, he called an IFF after the two runners had stolen second and third. I too have done this unfortunately. My point is it was declared but the batter was not out. Same goes for a ball that bounces foul. Whether you add the "if fair" to it, if it goes foul then he isn't out. Now in the OP the interference would normally kill the ball but you have to wait for the ball to settle or be touched to be able to rule on it. There is no such thing as a not fair ball that isn't foul. There are two answers to the question, fair/foul, there is no middle ground.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's my question on all this:

If the INT happens as the fly ball is going up, and the IFF hasn't been called yet, then what? I'd guess that's what they ended up calling. No IFF, because the play was dead before it could be judged.

It was not an IFF because it bounced foul without anyone touching it. It was a foul ball.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not convinced that the ball being dead means we can't judge fair or foul.

Suppose the ball goes well into foul territory on the fly, we have interference by a runner, and then the ball drops on foul ground. It feels like we have an out and a foul ball, even though we haven't formally judged the ball foul at the time of the interference. Is that wrong? It seems like the same principle applies to the IFF if fair scenario.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MLB sent out this clarification on this play to all evaluators:

MLB sent us clarification of the play you asked me about last week. I've copied and pasted MLB's email to us...

In the bottom of the 7th inning with runners on 1st and 2nd and 1 out, the batter hit a pop-up near first base and, as the first baseman was moving to field the ball, the runner on first interfered. Meanwhile, the ball fell untouched and rolled into foul territory before first base; however, the infield fly rule had been declared.

 

The crew correctly ruled the runner from first out for interference and returned the batter-runner back to bat counting the foul ball.  On this play, the batted ball initially landed over fair territory but was untouched as it rolled foul and stopped over foul territory before first base. Since the ball was foul, the batter-runner cannot be awarded first base or, as in this case, declared out by the infield fly rule. Also, the batter already had two strikes and as with any foul ball with two strikes, the previous count applies.

 

Note, if the batted ball had been ruled fair on this play, the runner who interfered would be declared out as well as the batter-runner for the declared infield fly.  If the infield fly had not been declared, the runner who interfered would be declared out and the batter-runner awarded first base unless, in the umpire’s judgment, the interference was intentional with the obvious intent to break up a double play. In that case, both the runner who interfered and the batter-runner would be declared out.

 

 

OBR 7.08 Any runner is out when—

 

(B) He intentionally interferes with a thrown ball; or hinders a fielder attempting to make a play on a batted ball;

 

 

 

Rule 7.08(B) Comment: A runner who is adjudged to have hindered a fielder who is attempting to make a play on a batted ball is out whether it was intentional or not.

 

 

 

If, however, the runner has contact with a legally occupied base when he hinders the fielder, he shall not be called out unless, in the umpire’s judgment, such hindrance, whether it occurs on fair or foul territory, is intentional. If the umpire declares the hindrance intentional, the following penalty shall apply: With less than two out, the umpire shall declare both the runner and batter out. With two out, the umpire shall declare the batter out.

 

 

 

(j) He fails to avoid a fielder who is attempting to field a batted ball, or intentionally interferes with a thrown ball, provided that if two or more fielders attempt to field a batted ball, and the runner comes in contact with one or more of them, the umpire shall determine which fielder is entitled to the benefit of this rule, and shall not declare the runner out for coming in contact with a fielder other than the one the umpire determines to be entitled to field such a ball

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All I wanted to know if it was a matter of timing on how to call the different scenarios which were possible on a play like this. And, it appears it is. If INT happens before IFR is declared, call the INT as usual and put BR on 1B. If called after on a fair ball, get 2 outs. If called on a foul ball, get 1 out and return the batter. All of this is minus any intent. If intentional, get 2 outs.

All I wanted is a consistent ruling and I will take the consensus over 1 odd ruling for a play like this any day. And, I wasn't arguing for anything. I just know there were some differing opinions even amongst the official authorities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MLB sent out this clarification on this play to all evaluators:

MLB sent us clarification of the play you asked me about last week. I've copied and pasted MLB's email to us...

In the bottom of the 7th inning with runners on 1st and 2nd and 1 out, the batter hit a pop-up near first base and, as the first baseman was moving to field the ball, the runner on first interfered. Meanwhile, the ball fell untouched and rolled into foul territory before first base; however, the infield fly rule had been declared.

 

The crew correctly ruled the runner from first out for interference and returned the batter-runner back to bat counting the foul ball.  On this play, the batted ball initially landed over fair territory but was untouched as it rolled foul and stopped over foul territory before first base. Since the ball was foul, the batter-runner cannot be awarded first base or, as in this case, declared out by the infield fly rule. Also, the batter already had two strikes and as with any foul ball with two strikes, the previous count applies.

 

Note, if the batted ball had been ruled fair on this play, the runner who interfered would be declared out as well as the batter-runner for the declared infield fly.  If the infield fly had not been declared, the runner who interfered would be declared out and the batter-runner awarded first base unless, in the umpire’s judgment, the interference was intentional with the obvious intent to break up a double play. In that case, both the runner who interfered and the batter-runner would be declared out.

 

 

OBR 7.08 Any runner is out when—

 

(B) He intentionally interferes with a thrown ball; or hinders a fielder attempting to make a play on a batted ball;

 

 

 

Rule 7.08(B) Comment: A runner who is adjudged to have hindered a fielder who is attempting to make a play on a batted ball is out whether it was intentional or not.

 

 

 

If, however, the runner has contact with a legally occupied base when he hinders the fielder, he shall not be called out unless, in the umpire’s judgment, such hindrance, whether it occurs on fair or foul territory, is intentional. If the umpire declares the hindrance intentional, the following penalty shall apply: With less than two out, the umpire shall declare both the runner and batter out. With two out, the umpire shall declare the batter out.

 

 

 

(j) He fails to avoid a fielder who is attempting to field a batted ball, or intentionally interferes with a thrown ball, provided that if two or more fielders attempt to field a batted ball, and the runner comes in contact with one or more of them, the umpire shall determine which fielder is entitled to the benefit of this rule, and shall not declare the runner out for coming in contact with a fielder other than the one the umpire determines to be entitled to field such a ball

that's the definitive I asked for, and it clarified what I stated in my only other post.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...