Interference on Infield fly

[Guest Ralph]

Whats the call?

Bases loaded 1 out

Batter hit a fly ball that is on the first base line between home and first. Umpire Signals "Infield Fly batter is out - if fair" as the fielder is camped out waiting to make the catch the batter/runner collides with him and the ball drops. The Umpire calls "interference".

My position is - once the umpire calls "interference" someone must be out. that person is the man closes to the plate (3rd) since the batter /runner is already out

the argument I am getting is  although the runners advance at their own risk the interference did not prevent an out or another "out". The umpire should have just called "TIME"  and call the ball dead. Preventing the runners from advancing. So basically saying he error-ed in calling interference

 

 

[Senor Azul]

From the 2016 Baseball Rule Differences by Carl Childress (section 338, p. 222):

R1, R2, 0 outs. B1 pops up on the first-base line. The umpire declares: “Infield fly if fair.” As F3 is waiting in fair territory to catch the fly, BR bumps into him. The umpire calls: “That’s interference!” The ball remains alive. The first baseman touches the ball in (a) fair territory and makes the catch; or (b) foul territory and drops the ball. Ruling: In (a) and (b), BR is out. In (a), the ball remains alive: BR is out on the infield fly, and the umpire ignores the interference. The defense may play on R1 or R2. In (b), BR is out for interference, and the ball is immediately dead. Runners remain TOI.

Case play covers all three codes.

[beerguy55]

If the ball rolled foul (before touching a fielder) it would just be the batter out on interference.

[Gfoley4]

OBR definition of terms comment: 

 

Quote

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.

I guess the only question is, if it was a fair ball and the B-R interfered, are we still grabbing another out?

[Guest Ralph]

sorry ball landed fair.

[BrianC14]

5 minutes ago, Gfoley4 said:

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.

Does it say how to rule if "the runner who interfered" and "the batter" are the same person?   Even if the pop fly is caught in foul ground, we're putting the batter back in the box?    Wha-a-a-a-at?

[Gfoley4]

2 minutes ago, BrianC14 said:

Does it say how to rule if "the runner who interfered" and "the batter" are the same person?   Even if the pop fly is caught in foul ground, we're putting the batter back in the box?    Wha-a-a-a-at?

yeah it does seem pretty weird, but I guess the rules are the rules. This was put into place after a Dodgers-Marlins game where there was interference, but the interference made it a dead ball before fair or foul could be determined. http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1536094-mlb-modifies-infield-fly-rule-in-wake-of-confusing-play-during-2012-season

[Guest Ralph]

4 minutes ago, BrianC14 said:

Does it say how to rule if "the runner who interfered" and "the batter" are the same person?   Even if the pop fly is caught in foul ground, we're putting the batter back in the box?    Wha-a-a-a-at?

Ya - I'm not getting that either.

In my situation the fielder was bumped as he was ready to catch the ball. the collision prevented him from making the catch but he did touch the ball.

[Cav]

If the interference preventing the D from getting two out, then yes, I'm going to go get the second out, either the runner on whom the D was going to get or the runner closest to home, if more than one runner was in jeopardy.

NFHS 8-4-2 Any runner is out when he:

g...or his being put out is prevented by an ­illegal act by anyone connected with the team (2-21-1, 3-2-2, 3) or by the batter-runner; for runner returning to base (8-2-6); and for runner being hit by a batted ball (8-4-2k). If, in the judgment of the umpire, a runner ­including the batter-runner interferes in any way and prevents a double play anywhere, two shall be declared out (the runner who interfered and the other runner involved). If a retired runner interferes, and in the judgment of the umpire, another runner could have been put out, the umpire shall declare that runner out. If the umpire is uncertain who would have been played on, the runner closest to home shall be called out; or

 

[BrianC14]

3 minutes ago, Gfoley4 said:

yeah it does seem pretty weird, but I guess the rules are the rules. This was put into place after a Dodgers-Marlins game where there was interference, but the interference made it a dead ball before fair or foul could be determined. http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1536094-mlb-modifies-infield-fly-rule-in-wake-of-confusing-play-during-2012-season

From that linked article:   According to baseball's modified infield fly rule for 2013, a similar play will now produce a double play (assuming the catcher did indeed touch the ball in fair territory). 

Also, it wasn't the batter/runner that caused the INT, it was (apparently) R1.

[beerguy55]

11 minutes ago, Gfoley4 said:

OBR definition of terms comment: 

 

I guess the only question is, if it was a fair ball and the B-R interfered, are we still grabbing another out?

I would treat it as a batter or runner who has been put out that interferes with a following play...sure, there "shouldn't" have been a play, but at the same time the batter "shouldn't" have had any reason to interfere, since he's already out, so I'm not giving him a free shot at F3.  Benefit of the doubt to the defense, R3 is also out, and maybe MC on BR for short measure.

 

Any batter or runner who has just been put out, or any runner who has just scored, hinders or impedes any following play being made on a runner. Such runner shall be declared out for the interference of his teammate

[BrianC14]

5 minutes ago, Cav said:

If the interference preventing the D from getting two out, then yes, I'm going to go get the second out, either the runner on whom the D was going to get or the runner closest to home, if more than one runner was in jeopardy.

NFHS 8-4-2 Any runner is out when he:

g...or his being put out is prevented by an ­illegal act by anyone connected with the team (2-21-1, 3-2-2, 3) or by the batter-runner; for runner returning to base (8-2-6); and for runner being hit by a batted ball (8-4-2k). If, in the judgment of the umpire, a runner ­including the batter-runner interferes in any way and prevents a double play anywhere, two shall be declared out (the runner who interfered and the other runner involved). If a retired runner interferes, and in the judgment of the umpire, another runner could have been put out, the umpire shall declare that runner out. If the umpire is uncertain who would have been played on, the runner closest to home shall be called out; or

 

Does this include the IFF ruling as well?   Not sure that it does....

[Cav]

2 minutes ago, BrianC14 said:

Does this include the IFF ruling as well?   Not sure that it does....

Why wouldn't it?

[BrianC14]

3 minutes ago, Cav said:

Why wouldn't it?

Different situation from the fair/foul call, IFF will get the batter if fair, and how are you going to get a 2nd out during an IFF - - reference:

"...a runner ­including the batter-runner interferes in any way and prevents a double play anywhere, two shall be declared out (the runner who interfered and the other runner involved)."

That is related to a double play that is in progress.   Where is the opportunity for a double play during an IFF  - - UNLESS, of course, the runners are putting themselves at risk by attempting to advance.

[beerguy55]

1 minute ago, BrianC14 said:

Different situation from the fair/foul call, IFF will get the batter if fair, and how are you going to get a 2nd out during an IFF - - reference:

"...a runner ­including the batter-runner interferes in any way and prevents a double play anywhere, two shall be declared out (the runner who interfered and the other runner involved)."

That is related to a double play that is in progress.   Where is the opportunity for a double play during an IFF  - - UNLESS, of course, the runners are putting themselves at risk by attempting to advance.

The key is, this is a live ball.  Let's say BR hits F3, the ball then hits F3 in fair territory and rolls off into foul territory, allowing R3 to score and R2 to advance.  That's not a simple return the runners to their base is it?  You gotta call R3 out don't you, and return R2 to second?

[BrianC14]

16 minutes ago, beerguy55 said:

I would treat it as a batter or runner who has been put out that interferes with a following play...sure, there "shouldn't" have been a play, but at the same time the batter "shouldn't" have had any reason to interfere, since he's already out, so I'm not giving him a free shot at F3.  Benefit of the doubt to the defense, R3 is also out, and maybe MC on BR for short measure.

 

Any batter or runner who has just been put out, or any runner who has just scored, hinders or impedes any following play being made on a runner. Such runner shall be declared out for the interference of his teammate

From the article linked by Gfoley4, above:    

Added to Rule 2.00 (Infield Fly) for 2013 is the phrase:

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.

[BrianC14]

Just now, beerguy55 said:

The key is, this is a live ball.  Let's say BR hits F3, the ball then hits F3 in fair territory and rolls off into foul territory, allowing R3 to score and R2 to advance.  That's not a simple return the runners to their base is it?  You gotta call R3 out don't you, and return R2 to second?

Agreed, if that's the way the play develops.   That's a different situation then if the ball were to land foul, or be caught in foul territory.   According to the modified ruling done in 2013:   

Added to Rule 2.00 (Infield Fly) for 2013 is the phrase:

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.

That last part makes no sense.

[Gfoley4]

6 minutes ago, BrianC14 said:

From the article linked by Gfoley4, above:    

Added to Rule 2.00 (Infield Fly) for 2013 is the phrase:

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.

yes, but it doesn't mention if the interference was by the B-R. So do we rule it similar to interference by a retired runner, runner closest to home is also out?

[beerguy55]

13 minutes ago, BrianC14 said:

Agreed, if that's the way the play develops.   That's a different situation then if the ball were to land foul, or be caught in foul territory.   According to the modified ruling done in 2013:   

Added to Rule 2.00 (Infield Fly) for 2013 is the phrase:

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.

That last part makes no sense.

 But that's not what we're discussing.  You asked Cav about the double play on a fair IFF, and I was responding to that.

It makes perfect sense.  Take the IFF out of the equation.  If R1 interferes with a fair fly ball he is out and BR gets first (even if ball is caught, because the ball is dead once interference is ruled).  If R1 interferes with a foul fly ball, he is out and.....you certainly wouldn't give the batter first base on a foul ball would you?

 

[Cav]

 

3 minutes ago, BrianC14 said:

Different situation from the fair/foul call, IFF will get the batter if fair, and how are you going to get a 2nd out during an IFF - - reference:

"...a runner ­including the batter-runner interferes in any way and prevents a double play anywhere, two shall be declared out (the runner who interfered and the other runner involved)."

That is related to a double play that is in progress.   Where is the opportunity for a double play during an IFF  - - UNLESS, of course, the runners are putting themselves at risk by attempting to advance.

If the runners are over- or under-thinking the situation and are vulnerable to appeal for failing to retouch, then a double play "is in progress." 

The batted ball was declared an IFF, so it had to be catchable with ordinary effort regardless if eventually falling fair or foul.  If fair, BR is out on the IFF.  If foul, BR is out on interference with the fielder's attempt to field a catchable fly ball.  One way or another, one out. 

As I take in all that is going on around the bases with my supernatural powers bestowed upon me and if I discover another runner or two in jeopardy of being doubled up on a live- ball appeal for over- or under-thinking the situation had the ball been caught, then I pop one of them, too.  If more than one and if I'm not sure on whom the D would appeal their opponent's stupidity, then I'll go get the one closest to home.  Two out.

Getting outs is right up there with calling strikes when it comes to complying with the wishes of the front office for us umpires to move the games along.    

[BrianC14]

13 minutes ago, beerguy55 said:

 But that's not what we're discussing.  You asked Cav about the double play on a fair IFF, and I was responding to that.

It makes perfect sense.  Take the IFF out of the equation.  If R1 interferes with a fair fly ball he is out and BR gets first (even if ball is caught, because the ball is dead once interference is ruled).  If R1 interferes with a foul fly ball, he is out and.....you certainly wouldn't give the batter first base on a foul ball would you?

 

Read the official ruling from 2013.  

I have been discussing the OP.

[Cav]

Allow me to add:

NFHS 8.4.2 COMMENT: The umpire has authority to declare two runners out when a runner or retired runner illegally interferes and prevents a double play. In such circumstances, the runner who interferes is out and the other runner involved is also out. Also, when the batter-runner interferes, the umpire may declare two outs. The batter-runner is declared out and so is the runner who has advanced the nearest to home plate.

[beerguy55]

2 hours ago, BrianC14 said:

Read the official ruling from 2013.  

I have been discussing the OP.

I've read it.  About a dozen times in the last 15 minutes.  It makes sense.

First - how would you rule runner interference in a non-IFF situation.  If R1 interferes with a fly ball in foul territory, R1 is out, ball is dead immediately, and batter returns to plate, even if caught...no?  You certainly wouldn't give him first base, like you would if it was a fair ball.

Second - think of it this way.  On the IFF 2013 ruling, they're saying the ball is live until it is determined to be fair or foul.  Once it is fair or foul then you know if the batter is out on IFF or not.  And once it is foul or fair, the ball is then dead due to interference.   So, when is the ball determined to be fair or foul?  When it is touched or comes to rest.  So, a ball that first touches a fielder in foul territory is foul.  The ball is dead the moment the fielder touches it.  The catch actually occurs AFTER the touch (a very very short time after the touch, but after nonetheless).  So, you would do the same as you would in a non-IFF foul ball interference situation, wouldn't you?

Third - in this situation, the batter would be out if it was foul, because he is also a runner.  Or, he is out via IFF as soon as the ball is ruled to be fair.  At that moment, he becomes a retired runner that has interfered with a following play.  At which point I would think it is in the umpire's right to rule R3 out.

Sequence matters - if it's foul the out occurs at TOI, and the ball is dead at that point.  If it's a fair IFF the batter is out immediately (even though you have to wait to see if it is fair) and then the dead ball occurs later, at TOI.

[BrianC14]

2 hours ago, beerguy55 said:

I've read it.  About a dozen times in the last 15 minutes.  It makes sense.

First - how would you rule runner interference in a non-IFF situation.  If R1 interferes with a fly ball in foul territory, R1 is out, ball is dead immediately, and batter returns to plate, even if caught...no?  You certainly wouldn't give him first base, like you would if it was a fair ball.

Second - think of it this way.  On the IFF 2013 ruling, they're saying the ball is live until it is determined to be fair or foul.  Once it is fair or foul then you know if the batter is out on IFF or not.  And once it is foul or fair, the ball is then dead due to interference.   So, when is the ball determined to be fair or foul?  When it is touched or comes to rest.  So, a ball that first touches a fielder in foul territory is foul.  The ball is dead the moment the fielder touches it.  The catch actually occurs AFTER the touch (a very very short time after the touch, but after nonetheless).  So, you would do the same as you would in a non-IFF foul ball interference situation, wouldn't you?

Third - in this situation, the batter would be out if it was foul, because he is also a runner.  Or, he is out via IFF as soon as the ball is ruled to be fair.  At that moment, he becomes a retired runner that has interfered with a following play.  At which point I would think it is in the umpire's right to rule R3 out.

Sequence matters - if it's foul the out occurs at TOI, and the ball is dead at that point.  If it's a fair IFF the batter is out immediately (even though you have to wait to see if it is fair) and then the dead ball occurs later, at TOI.

OK, we're getting outs on this.   I will maintain that, just for the purposes of the 2013 OBR addition to the IFF rule, that it is poorly worded, and leave it at that.

So we're getting two outs on this, and R3 is out due to the INT of his B/R teammate.     So now let's continue the 'what if' game:    

Same setup for the situation, except that bases are not loaded, we have just R1 and R2, one out.   Same situation with the pop fly hit up along 1B line.   R1 and R2 both stay in contact with their respective bases, being pretty smart about the "IFF batter's out if fair" call that's been made.   Ball is touched in fair territory by F3, who is / has been interfered with in his attempt to catch the ball.   

Question: Will R2 be called out on the INT by B/R?   

[BrianC14]

3 hours ago, Cav said:

Allow me to add:

NFHS 8.4.2 COMMENT: The umpire has authority to declare two runners out when a runner or retired runner illegally interferes and prevents a double play. In such circumstances, the runner who interferes is out and the other runner involved is also out. Also, when the batter-runner interferes, the umpire may declare two outs. The batter-runner is declared out and so is the runner who has advanced the nearest to home plate.

Thanks for this.   But it goes back to my earlier comment about a double play being 'in progress'.   I'm not going to read minds about baserunners, I'm going to react to what they are doing at the time;   if R3 attempts to score, I'll get him called out, because in that case, there could have been a DP; same with any baserunner in the IFF situation who attempts to advance.    But if they're not attempting to advance, I think it's overreaching to call R3 out if he's standing on the base during the play;  he doesn't HAVE to advance because he'll be protected by the IFF rule.   This is why I suggested that the 8.4.2 rule has more to do with the 'double play in progress' (6-4-3 type), because that situation and an INT call is different from the IFF, at least in it's intent.   My $0.02.

[BrianC14]

8 minutes ago, Senor Azul said:

From the 2016 Baseball Rule Differences by Carl Childress (section 338, p. 222):

R1, R2, 0 outs. B1 pops up on the first-base line. The umpire declares: “Infield fly if fair.” As F3 is waiting in fair territory to catch the fly, BR bumps into him. The umpire calls: “That’s interference!” The ball remains alive. The first baseman touches the ball in (a) fair territory and makes the catch; or (b) foul territory and drops the ball. Ruling: In (a) and (b), BR is out. In (a), the ball remains alive: BR is out on the infield fly, and the umpire ignores the interference. The defense may play on R1 or R2. In (b), BR is out for interference, and the ball is immediately dead. Runners remain TOI.

This is from BRD (and thanks, Senor Azul for bringing this in)  -- - what rule set is being quoted here?   (I only have the Jaksa/Roder book;  will have to get BRD, for sure).