timelydew

Right, yeah. His answer confused me. So then, is he wrong altogether? For example, if you take the same scenario, and apply it to a ball hit over the outfield fence in fair territory (OF gains possession, appearing to make miraculous catch, but drops it once they hit the ground on the other side), then it's just a home run. I remember Mookie Betts catching a Jose Abreu fly ball, flipping over the short wall in right center at Fenway, and dropping it after hitting the deck on the other side of the wall. It was ruled a HR. (http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/mookie-betts-robs-jose-abreu-flips-wall-ruled-hr-article-1.2307396) So, as you said earlier, is that first part of the rule just a leftover relic? The rule/interpretation in general makes sense, notwithstanding the first part. I get the second part and it's still pertinent. The only permutation of the first part I can even think would apply would be if the catch was made and the dude just drops the ball inadvertently after it's ruled a catch and an out. But that doesn't seem right either, since this also applies to thrown balls. Curse the man who has kept this around.

I didn't realize I'd opened up such a can of worms. To me, the rule implies that if, for example, you have a runner on second, and the batter hits a ball into foul territory near the seats (picture a MLB park), that a fielder leaping over the wall who gains possession of the ball, and drops it once they hit the ground not only doesn't record an out (per the rules for making a catch), but would also score the runner who was on second. That... is weird and doesn't seem right. Imagine that play ending a game. What an uproar you'd have. I'm just going off @Rich Ives answer.... I almost wish I'd never asked. I'm not disagreeing with Rich's interpretation. The way it's written, his answer seems plausible. Oddly enough, this is under the "deflected balls out of play" category.

Isn't it considered a dropped ball and not an out if you hit the ground and the ball pops out? "A catch is the act of a fielder in getting secure possession in his hand or glove of a ball in flight and firmly holding it; providing he does not use his cap, protector, pocket or any other part of his uniform in getting possession. It is not a catch, however, if simultaneously or immediately following his contact with the ball, he collides with a player, or with a wall, or if he falls down, and as a result of such collision or falling, drops the ball." So if a fielder leaped over a wall in foul territory, secured possession of a ball going over the wall, and subsequently dropped it after falling into out of play territory, would the runners advance (if any) and the out not be recorded? That hardly seems fair. I gotta say I'm confused a little.

Yeah, the first part gets me too. I honestly don't know. Pretty befuddled by that.

Hahahaha this made me laugh harder than I should have

"If a fielder has complete possession of a batted or thrown ball and drops the ball while he is out of play, or if the fielder drops such a ball and it then goes out of play, the award is two bases from the position of the runners at the time the ball was dropped" I guess my question is, has anyone ever seen this? I suppose the odds of this happening in a MLB park are next to none, especially regarding the first part (what with walls and all), but yeah. It's hard to find reference to this anywhere on the internet so I guess I'm asking if anyone has ever seen this at the pro level, or anywhere else. I'm picturing an outfielder, having made a legal catch or gathering the ball in near the wall after a hit, doing this. I found this on a site called baseball rules academy, and it appears to be from the MLB Umpires Manual, so perhaps it has happened. I have never seen nor read the manual, so I'm not sure.

Yes, I assume that was how it hypothetically unfolded. Thanks for the quick response.

"First baseman sets up in foul territory to receive the throw from the catcher on a dropped third strike. Runner runs to first running outside the running lane (to the left in fair territory) and is hit with the ball before touching first base.Correct call: runner is safeExplanation: The runner is allowed to exit the running lane in order avoid a fielder, which in this case is a first baseman who is standing directly in the running lane. Since the runner is running to the left of the running lane he is not intentionally trying to interfere with the throw or the first baseman and should be called safe." ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Is this true under OBR? I thought avoiding a fielder only had to do with a batted ball. "except that he may run outside (to the right of) the three foot line or inside (to the left of) the foul line to avoid a fielder attempting to field a batted ball"

And man, I was thinking of the infield as including all the dirt before the outfield grass... how wrong I was. I feel dumb now. Thank you for correcting me. I owe ya. I'm just beginning to understand the finer points. This changes everything I was talking about.

So, in layman's terms, you must adjudge umpire interference in the simplest terms, i.e., whether it passes an infielder or not. Nothing more, nothing less. Say a drive up the middle hits the second base ump working on the edge of the dirt infield, but passed a fielder on its way to doing so: no interference, correct? That little snippet in the comment seemed to lead me astray quite a bit. I didn't think to think of it as just an example and not gospel truth. Basically it's saying that an ump working just behind the pitcher's mound would be liable for interference if it passed the pitcher but not another infielder, and was just providing context. I'm sorry for misunderstanding its context. I've got it now, right?

"If a fair ball touches an umpire working in the infield after it has bounded past, or over, the pitcher, it is a dead ball." That is what I was referencing to begin with. That seems to be a pretty specific criterion to me. If he's actually "in the infield," to me, you have a dead ball, period. And the infield ends at the beginning of the outfield grass. Anyway, I'm done with this. As a hockey ref by trade I deal with zones and strict enforcement of them in certain situations. I'm just going by what the rule says and taking it literally. I know it's not the only criteria, but it's an important note to keep in mind along with the other criteria for UI. I don't think I've been expressing myself very clearly. I understand that umpire's positioning isn't the only determining factor.

Right on, that makes a bit more sense (in regards to through and immediately behind). I've done some more research and am inclined to believe that the infield is taken very literally vis a vis the wording and application of the rule. Another post on some random board... "What part of the field was the ump on when he was hit by the batted ball?If he was in the outfield, then the ball is live. If he was in the infield, then the ball is dead. You mentioned runners were moving, so I assume he was on the infield, which means the ball was dead." This poster was the rules interpreter and mod of the site. I do concede that you're correct in saying that 99% of the time, the ump is beyond the infielder and no interference applies anyway. Thanks for replying. I really am sorry about the duplicate posting. I want to be a good citizen of these boards and will act accordingly from now on.

See, I was told otherwise on umpire.org by an experienced ump. This is why it's so hard to reconcile the rules, man. Some of my exchange.... ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Originally Posted by timelydew So, if he, hypothetically, was barely on the outfield grass with nobody on, he's not considered on the infield? Just making sure. "I can only imagine an umpire on the outfield grass in two instances...4 or more man mechanics with the 2nd base umpire outside with no runners on (or an accepted mechanic that would otherwise place him there).OR, rugrat baseball that has the base umpire work on the outside as opposed to inside.To answer the question, in that situation, by rule, this would not be INT." And.. "As noted above, the umpire can be on the grass or on the dirt (and still be considered inside) for the purpose of this rule application. He would likely not be more than a step or two onto the dirt as he would then find himself in the base path..."

All right, all right. I got it. Put away the pitchforks.

Yeah, sorry for posting it twice, just having a debate with a friend and wanted the question answered expeditiously. So, "working in the infield" means actually on the dirt or grass, right? If even a couple inches on the outfield grass, you've passed the infield boundary in relation to interference, correct? And, for argument's sake, can you picture a ball hitting an ump that didn't pass by an infielder? I.E., the fielders are positioned in such a way that the ball strikes an ump who isn't "working in the infield" and isn't behind a fielder. would this hypothetically be interference?

I'm fairly new to exploring the rules of baseball in-depth, and have a question about how umpire interference works. Well, two questions, actually.1. Is it the same as base runner interference, where the ball must pass an infielder close by or through that infielder?2. This comment to rule 5.06... "If a fair ball touches an umpire working in the infield after it has bounded past, or over, the pitcher, it is a dead ball." What does "working in the infield" actually mean? Does the ump have to be on the infield grass? On the infield dirt? Can he be on the lip of the outfield grass for this to apply? Is there an actual boundary or line of demarcation?

You're one helpful ump. Thank you. I knew it sounded wrong in principle. I had a feeling it would require a double play.

Simply, does this refer to when the player begins his leap, or does this mean the ball must be hitting the glove at the time one or both feet are over the playing surface?

"Ball Touched by Fielder, Runner Lets it Touch Him If the umpire judges that a runner intentionally lets a deflected ball hit him in order to prevent another fielder from making a play on the ball, he shall be declared out and the ball becomes dead. In addition, the batter-runner will be declared out." That's from the site where I discovered the rule. So... it's kind of right, then?

Awesome, thank you. That's precisely what I wanted to know. While I'm here, on the one or both feet rule, does that refer to the ball hitting the glove or the beginning of the jump?

So, he can be bobbling it on the way to the ground on the other side of the fence? I don't know if it matters what rule set it is. I'm asking about OBR.

Inspired by watching that kid leap over the wall to make a catch to rob a HR, if, when leaping over the wall, the ball is being bobbled on the way to the ground on the other side of the fence, would it not be a catch if both the outfielder's feet were both over the wall while he's bobbling it? (assume he ultimately does hang onto it after juggling it.)

Does this situation call for a double play (both runner and batter-runner out?)

Under OBR, is the batter-runner out as well or just the runner if the runner intentionally deflects a batted ball?

Thanks, Rich!