Marlins-Dodgers Interference Play

[Lindsay]

We are fortunate to have Vin Scully call this interference play, especially after a thread called "Hawk Harrelson at it again."

http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=24245337&topic_id=&c_id=mlb&tcid=vpp_copy_24245337&v=3

[Thunderheads]

holy crap!

[dumbdumb]

We are fortunate to have Vin Scully call this interference play, especially after a thread called "Hawk Harrelson at it again."

http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=24245337&topic_id=&c_id=mlb&tcid=vpp_copy_24245337&v=3

Yes, nice to see a level headed person, without the rant.

Now for the play

You have 2 rules going on at the same time, IFF and obstruction, what are the scenario's and rulings if the ball is fair, and what if it is foul? Is the ball dead if it was fair? If it was fair, would you have a triple play. Batter out for IFF, R2 out for being tagged (or was he). R1 out at 3rd. What's up for all the rules guys.

edited 5:45 pm---HDS

What, you didn't see the fielder intentionally run into (obstruction) and then grab the runner who was running, trying to draw the interference, because he knew neither he nor the catcher was going to catch the fair (IFF) ball and therefor the runner who was running would get to 2nd base easily.

Just kidding. Thanks for fixing the error. I was late and too far out the door when I realized I had typed obstruction. Gave me a good laugh on the way to work.

[Haid D' Salaami]

Rule 7.08 ( b ) IFF Batter out.. R1 out for INT.. play should have been dead as soon as there was INT.. R2 returned back to 2nd.

And rule 7.09 (j) apply here.

[Haid D' Salaami]

We are fortunate to have Vin Scully call this interference play, especially after a thread called "Hawk Harrelson at it again."

http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=24245337&topic_id=&c_id=mlb&tcid=vpp_copy_24245337&v=3

Yes, nice to see a level headed person, without the rant.

Now for the play

You have 2 rules going on at the same time, IFF and Interference , what are the scenario's and rulings if the ball is fair, and what if it is foul? Is the ball dead if it was fair? If it was fair, would you have a triple play. Batter out for IFF, R2 out for being tagged (or was he). R1 out at 3rd. What's up for all the rules guys.

I fixed it for you...

[mstaylor]

I have seen some believe the catcher should be the protected player, not F3. No way, no how is that the catcher's ball. That is a easy catch for F3 if he can get by the runner. It took a while but they got t right.

[Jimurray]

Rule 7.08 ( b ) IFF Batter out.. R1 out for INT.. play should have been dead as soon as there was INT.. R2 returned back to 2nd.

And rule 7.09 (j) apply here.

According to the BRD, the PBUC back in 2001 advised that, if interference occurred during an IFF if fair situation, the umpire should not stop play until the status of the ball was determined. If foul you have the interfering runner out. If fair you have the BR and the runner out.

[mstaylor]

Rule 7.08 ( b ) IFF Batter out.. R1 out for INT.. play should have been dead as soon as there was INT.. R2 returned back to 2nd.

And rule 7.09 (j) apply here.

According to the BRD, the PBUC back in 2001 advised that, if interference occurred during an IFF if fair situation, the umpire should not stop play until the status of the ball was determined. If foul you have the interfering runner out. If fair you have the BR and the runner out.

Which is what they eventially did but it took some talking. On the other clip of this same play the announcers were all over the place and tried to figure what the U1 signalled. He obviously pointed up for the IFF, then at the contact calling the interference.

[basejester]

Which is what they eventially did but it took some talking. On the other clip of this same play the announcers were all over the place and tried to figure what the U1 signalled. He obviously pointed up for the IFF, then at the contact calling the interference.

Dodger runners certainly behaved as if they didn't know the IFF rule was in effect. It seems like R2 should know that somebody is out for some reason and he's not forced.

[Umpire in Chief]

If you haven't read it already Gil had a spot on article about this play.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1312260-marlins-dodgers-interference-play-why-umpires-vin-scullys-calls-were-correct

[Umpete]

The reason for all the confusion (I think) is because HPU called the ball fair. He must have thought F2 touched the ball. I did too until I watched it about a dozen times. Foul ball - no IFF.

[UmpTTS43]

Vin was spot on until he digressed and started calling the INT "OBS".

[bam]

Gil DIDN'T have it spot-on. He states that the catcher dropped the ball. Catcher didn't touch it, so it was a foull ball and that's why the batter remained at bat. If the catcher had truly dropped the ball it would have been a DP. And Scully NEVER said anything about a foul ball, in fact he stated that the catcher dropped it. I like Scully as much as the next guy, but the fact is he didn't really get it right.

[Lindsay]

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)

[zm1283]

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)

Gil, I sent you a PM.

[Mudder]

Am I missing something here, I'm just not sure how you can definitively say F3 should be the protected fielder when the ball landed smake dab in the middle of F1, F2 and F3. I get why you would maybe not protect F2, as he's the catcher, but I think F1 was just as close, if not closer, to the fly ball then F3.

I mean if F3 was interfered with as he was, and F1 and F2 had to struggle to reach the ball, I can understand protecting F3, but even with F3 being interferred with thw way he was, you still have 2 guys (F1 and F2) more or less camped under the ball,so either one of them could have easily made the catch in plenty of time, but one of them blew it.

[JaxRolo]

You say F1 and F2 struggled to get to it the you say they were camped under it. Which one is it?

[UmpTTS43]

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)

Not entirely correct. You can have INT on an IFF. Wendelstedt's view of INT while the status of the ball is unclear is his opinion and, from my material/interpretations that I have, are not official. There are many things that are written "under the present rules" that are erroneous and need further clarifications. Had the ball been fair, I'm pretty sure they would have called the batter out. I would have under the official documentation and interps that I use.

Type A OBS, per the rule, says immediate dead ball. Incorrect, there are times when, while the ball is in flight, you have to let the play continue until the final status of the ball is known before the call can be made.

[Jimurray]

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)

This is what the 2010 WUM says: "The umpire should immediately call "time." He will then callout the runner who interfered and award the Batter-runner first base or return him to bat depending on whether the ball becomes a fair or foul ball on the intereference."

That covers the OP if the ball was foul.

If the ball was fair the WUM has two reference plays that then have the batter out on the IFF and the runner out onthe INT.

BRD also has the batter and runner out in this situation and seems to reference a PBUC ruling on this.

What did the OP umpires call the ball, foul or fair? I thought it was foul from how they put the batter back at bat but are you saying it was fair? The pitch by pitch has it foul.

[Mudder]

You say F1 and F2 struggled to get to it the you say they were camped under it. Which one is it?

Jax, I meant "IF" F1 and F2 had struggled to reach the fly ball and dropped it, then I see protecting F3 because perhaps he had a better chance of reaching it., but because F1 and F2 did not struggle (ie. they were basically camped under it) you should not protect F3.

But i guess the 1B ump saw the interference on F3 and called it right away

[noumpere]

You say F1 and F2 struggled to get to it the you say they were camped under it. Which one is it?

Jax, I meant "IF" F1 and F2 had struggled to reach the fly ball and dropped it, then I see protecting F3 because perhaps he had a better chance of reaching it., but because F1 and F2 did not struggle (ie. they were basically camped under it) you should not protect F3.

But i guess the 1B ump saw the interference on F3 and called it right away

You have to decide who to protect at the time the contact happened. If F3 wasnt protected then you might hav obstruction (but the runner wasnt going anywhere so it likely doesnt matter). On any reasonably high pop up not near or behind home then someone not named F1 or F2 is going to be protected in MLB. In youth ball then F1 or F2 might be the best fielder so they might be protected.

[JaxRolo]

You say F1 and F2 struggled to get to it the you say they were camped under it. Which one is it?

Jax, I meant "IF" F1 and F2 had struggled to reach the fly ball and dropped it, then I see protecting F3 because perhaps he had a better chance of reaching it., but because F1 and F2 did not struggle (ie. they were basically camped under it) you should not protect F3.

But i guess the 1B ump saw the interference on F3 and called it right away

Ok I see what you are saying. Thanks.

[basejester]

Not entirely correct. You can have INT on an IFF. Wendelstedt's view of INT while the status of the ball is unclear is his opinion and, from my material/interpretations that I have, are not official. There are many things that are written "under the present rules" that are erroneous and need further clarifications. Had the ball been fair, I'm pretty sure they would have called the batter out. I would have under the official documentation and interps that I use.

I think you make a good point.

If the ball was hit to the middle of the field, I cannot imagine the call being, "Infield Fly batter is out . . . Wait, no he's not."

[Jocko]

Say the ball is hit between F4-F6. IFR. R2 contacts the protected fielder, who either does or doesn't catch the ball. I got 2 outs here. R2 for the INT, BR on the IFF. No way am I sending B3 back to hit. No way, until someone can give me something definitive IN THE BOOK, and not a suggestion or personal interp.

[mstaylor]

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.