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

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.

It appears more rationalizing is taking place. What does this mean: "If INT happens before IFR is declared, call the INT as usual and put BR on 1B." ?

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.

It appears more rationalizing is taking place. What does this mean: "If INT happens before IFR is declared, call the INT as usual and put BR on 1B." ?

read it again... It doesn't say BEFORE IFF was declared, it says if IFF HAD NOT been declared, ie normal effort.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In summation, for those who STILL don't understand:

INT + IFF (if fair) = 2 outs

INT + any foul = 1 out, batter returns

INT + any fair (not IFF) = 1 out, BR gets 1B

INT + intent + any fair ball = 2 outs

Simple enough?

There are some previously mentioned variables, like who is out depends on how many outs there are. Keep this in mind:

With 2 outs, any INT on a batted ball play results in the BR being declared out (unless someone can think of something I'm forgetting)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In summation, for those who STILL don't understand:

INT + IFF (if fair) = 2 outs

INT + any foul = 1 out, batter returns

INT + any fair (not IFF) = 1 out, BR gets 1B

INT + intent + any fair ball = 2 outs

Simple enough?

There are some previously mentioned variables, like who is out depends on how many outs there are. Keep this in mind:

With 2 outs, any INT on a batted ball play results in the BR being declared out (unless someone can think of something I'm forgetting)

Good summary as long as some newby doesnt take it as gospel (and thats not a slam at you but just an issue with all summaries that they almost by definition arent complete.)

For example on your last point, intent needs to be "to break up a double play" and doesnt need to be a fair ball (think of a foul pop up on a squeeze play, for example) and on your second point its only going to be int if the foul ball was catchable. I know you know that and you meant it by having the iNT there but some others might get confused.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bingo. This play involved a fly ball that was not fair, so 2 outs were not possible. Send the batter back to hit for he has not yet completed his AB.

Just to be clear, it involved a foul ball.

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.

The ruling contradicts what you wrote. They did make a determination on fair/foul and determined it was foul. Right?

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.

We don't have to consider something as abstract as the indeterminate state of the ball when the interference occurs. We're not sending the batter back to the plate because of Schrödinger's infield fly. He's going back to the plate because the ball went foul.

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.

It appears more rationalizing is taking place. What does this mean: "If INT happens before IFR is declared, call the INT as usual and put BR on 1B." ?

read it again... It doesn't say BEFORE IFF was declared, it says if IFF HAD NOT been declared, ie normal effort.

You're right. I had to read it again. Part of the problem was Wendelstedt's ruling was in my head at the same time. And, it does contend with timing of when IFR is invoked.

It definitely says "if IFR".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Correct. "Not fair" = "Foul," though the minor difference is distinct not by rule, but by logical state. Though the ruling is one and the same, the play is logically different than had the ball been logically foul.

dude, logical, illogical, actual, factual, animal, vegetable, or mineral. Why are you overcomplicating this simple equation? Why play word games?

Next you'll break into song.

I'm Henry the VIII I am

Enery the VII I am I am

I married to the widow next door

She's been married seven times before

And every one was a Enery

She wouldn't have a Willie or a Sam

I'm er VIII ole man I'm Enery

Enery the VIII I am

Second verse. Same as the first!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Correct. "Not fair" = "Foul," though the minor difference is distinct not by rule, but by logical state. Though the ruling is one and the same, the play is logically different than had the ball been logically foul.

Let me see if I understand why you are making this distinction.

Hypothetically, if the ball had been touched by the catcher, how many outs do you have? I would have two: R1 for interference and BR for IFF.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hypothetically, if ruled fair by virtue of F2, you have two out. Agreed. I make the distinction because here we have what is essentially a "caused foul ball"—without interference, that's IFF for F3 likely makes that ball fair. Because of INT, you can argue that your probable fair ball is taken away and you have a ball that is not fair, the remedy for which is "foul ball." With regard for INT's rules regarding the intentional interference DP, you have the potential for an act of crafty gamesmanship to give B1 an extra chance at bat, all the while removing the IFF situation and conceding the out and baserunner.

All else equal in this situation....

Ball hit to middle infield => Obvious fair ball + INT = 2 out.

Ball hit to infield foul line => Unknown status + INT => Prevents F3 from making ball fair = 1 out (if judged unintentional)

Ball hit to infield foul line => Unknown status + INT => Ball is still fair + INT = 2 out.

Ball hit foul => Obvious foul ball + INT = 1 out.

There is room for subtle manipulation, which is one reason I make the distinction between "not fair" and "foul." In essence, it behooves the offensive team to stealthly unintentionally interfere with a ball near the foul line in this situation because near the line, there is a 50% chance interference will result in one, instead of two outs, which is advantageous if the batter is a team's MVP, power bat, etc. Obviously, this is a gamble for the DP remains a possibility.

But so is intentionally walking Barry Bonds with the bases loaded... It is all unorthodox, not to mention highly unusual and rare, strategy for this type of interference, by its very nature, is logistically a baserunner's sacrifice in an effort to preserve a plate appearance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Correct. "Not fair" = "Foul," though the minor difference is distinct not by rule, but by logical state. Though the ruling is one and the same, the play is logically different than had the ball been logically foul.

Let me see if I understand why you are making this distinction.

Hypothetically, if the ball had been touched by the catcher, how many outs do you have? I would have two: R1 for interference and BR for IFF.

That is exactly what you have. MLB's ruling is what I have said all along, the exception being that I am saying it is a delayed dead to rule on the fair/foul. MLB is doing the same thing but doesn't definitively say to delay killing the ball. Fair ball, two outs, foul ball, one out and a strike on the batter. I have contended from the beginning that you have to determine fair or foul, then kill it and call out(s). There is no sort of fair/foul, no basically fair, essentially foul, it is absolutely one or the other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All else equal in this situation....

Ball hit to middle infield => Obvious fair ball + INT = 2 out.

Ball hit to infield foul line => Unknown status + INT => Prevents F3 from making ball fair = 1 out (if judged unintentional)

Ball hit to infield foul line => Unknown status + INT => Ball is still fair + INT = 2 out.

Ball hit foul => Obvious foul ball + INT = 1 out.

A ball in the air has "unknown status" until it lands and or is touched. So you have too many items in your list above. Wait to see what happens before making the ruling. But you'd make the interference call when it happens of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I make the distinction because here we have what is essentially a "caused foul ball"—without interference, that's IFF for F3 likely makes that ball fair. Because of INT, you can argue that your probable fair ball is taken away and you have a ball that is not fair, the remedy for which is "foul ball."

That seems like an irrelevant remedy, since the ball is foul already in the definition of the scenario.

With regard for INT's rules regarding the intentional interference DP, you have the potential for an act of crafty gamesmanship to give B1 an extra chance at bat, all the while removing the IFF situation and conceding the out and baserunner.

All else equal in this situation....

Ball hit to middle infield => Obvious fair ball + INT = 2 out.

Ball hit to infield foul line => Unknown status + INT => Prevents F3 from making ball fair = 1 out (if judged unintentional)

Ball hit to infield foul line => Unknown status + INT => Ball is still fair + INT = 2 out.

Ball hit foul => Obvious foul ball + INT = 1 out.

The closest rule I can find here is 6.05(m), which is the same principle but it doesn't apply to batted balls.

(m) A preceding runner shall, in the umpire’s judgment, intentionally interfere with a

fielder who is attempting to catch a thrown ball or to throw a ball in an attempt to

complete any play:

Even without an IFF, if the runner blatantly trucks a fielder attempting to catch a fly ball in foul territory; I think we just get the runner. Under what rule do we get the batter?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even without an IFF, if the runner blatantly trucks a fielder attempting to catch a fly ball in foul territory; I think we just get the runner. Under what rule do we get the batter?

That's the entire premise. We don't get the batter unless the ball is fair (IFF), which gives the offense whose strategy is to keep B1 at bat an incentive to interfere and prevent a ball with unknown status from becoming fair.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's the entire premise. We don't get the batter unless the ball is fair (IFF), which gives the offense whose strategy is to keep B1 at bat an incentive to interfere and prevent a ball with unknown status from becoming fair.

I understand why you would want to prevent this gamesmanship. The same motivation exists on an ordinary fly ball in foul territory.

If there were intentional interference by the runner on an IFF if fair situation and the ball settled foul, under what rule would you declare the batter out?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If intentional, Rule 7.08(b ) authorizes getting both: "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." This is a spirit of the rules play also subject to 9.01©.

The principle of this gamesmanship, which I suppose is implied precisely by the word, is to make intentional interference appear unintentional. If clearly intentional as prescribed above, it would be in the best interests of the game to apply the rules duo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

there is a 50% chance interference will result in one, instead of two outs

I was rereading this, trying to make some sense of your "not fair" stance when I noticed this. If IFF is declared, as it was, how can the INT prevent 2 outs? The force is off and the BR is the only possible out. What am I not seeing, IYO?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

there is a 50% chance interference will result in one, instead of two outs

I was rereading this, trying to make some sense of your "not fair" stance when I noticed this. If IFF is declared, as it was, how can the INT prevent 2 outs? The force is off and the BR is the only possible out. What am I not seeing, IYO?

It's really a caused 2 out situation vs. just the one. My point is that if B1 is a batter a team really wants to get another chance at bat—say Bonds with SF—"unintentional interference" on a batted ball equal to the one seen on this play provides the batter with that second chance to see another pitch, rather than being put out on the easy fly ball or IFF (or what have you). Ordinarily, you're not getting a double play here (unless you get R1 and R2 getting confused and doing what they did in MIA-LAD), so the gamble is: Is getting B1 back to the plate worth the risk of R1 AND B1 being out if the interference is judged intentional or the ball is fair on IFF? The best case scenario for the team would be R1 out for INT, B1 returned to the plate on a foul ball.

This type of gamesmanship strategy can only be employed on the "not fair" situation - if the fly ball is clearly fair, B1 is out/not allowed to hit again regardless. If the fly ball is clearly foul, good luck making INT look unintentional, that is if the ball was all that catchable to begin with - there's no point in interfering with something not likely caught. With the ball "not fair," there's a slightly greater chance that with INT, the ball may be foul/B1 returned home than had there been no INT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's really a caused 2 out situation vs. just the one. My point is that if B1 is a batter a team really wants to get another chance at bat—say Bonds with SF—"unintentional interference" on a batted ball equal to the one seen on this play provides the batter with that second chance to see another pitch, rather than being put out on the easy fly ball or IFF (or what have you). Ordinarily, you're not getting a double play here (unless you get R1 and R2 getting confused and doing what they did in MIA-LAD), so the gamble is: Is getting B1 back to the plate worth the risk of R1 AND B1 being out if the interference is judged intentional or the ball is fair on IFF? The best case scenario for the team would be R1 out for INT, B1 returned to the plate on a foul ball.

This type of gamesmanship strategy can only be employed on the "not fair" situation - if the fly ball is clearly fair, B1 is out/not allowed to hit again regardless. If the fly ball is clearly foul, good luck making INT look unintentional, that is if the ball was all that catchable to begin with - there's no point in interfering with something not likely caught. With the ball "not fair," there's a slightly greater chance that with INT, the ball may be foul/B1 returned home than had there been no INT.

First Gil you cant interfere on a ball that cant be caught.

Secondly I dont follow yoru argument at all. Suppose the bases were loaded with no outs (not that I think the specifics matter as long as the infield fly situation is in effect). With the infield fly then the bases are still loaded with one out. With the interference and the ball going foul, theres runners at 2 and 3rd with an out. And if its bonds hitting, or setting up the force play matters then all the defense needs to do is walk him, getting us back to bases loaded and one out.

Now, most of the time another fielder is going to be able to make the play and or the ball will eventually be fair so we're going to get two outs in the interference play.

So even if the runner knows for certain that the play like the OP will happen its still a wsah. And since they never do the risk is far too great to give up another out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...