Interference on infield fly rule

[tiger79]

What is the ruling on the following - bases loaded, infield fly rule is announced by umpire on pop up, runner interferes with catch attempt and ball is dropped?

[LRZ]

Under OBR, if the runner interferes with F5's play on the fair IF, so that the ball drops and rolls foul, what about calling the batter out by applying 9.01( c), as a point not specifically covered by the rules? I'm troubled by essentially rewarding the offense for its interference.

 

Rule number edited. Thanks, maven.

[JaxRolo]

Under OBR, if the runner interferes with F5's play on the fair IF, so that the ball drops and rolls foul, what about calling the batter out by applying 9.03©, as a point not specifically covered by the rules? I'm troubled by essentially rewarding the offense for its interference.

No.

If it rolls foul then it is foul.

[grayhawk]

Under OBR, if the runner interferes with F5's play on the fair IF, so that the ball drops and rolls foul, what about calling the batter out by applying 9.03©, as a point not specifically covered by the rules? I'm troubled by essentially rewarding the offense for its interference.

 

How are you rewarding the offense?  In your case above, R3 would be out on the interference.  I would say declaring a runner on third to be out is a substantial penalty.

[maven]

Under OBR, if the runner interferes with F5's play on the fair IF, so that the ball drops and rolls foul, what about calling the batter out by applying 9.03©, as a point not specifically covered by the rules? I'm troubled by essentially rewarding the offense for its interference.

 

I think you mean 9.01( c). There is no 9.03( c).

 

But no, you can't do that. This IS covered in the rules. The classic correct application of 9.01( c) is the Randy Johnson's pitch that hit a bird. If you're thinking of any less bizarre play, forget about 9.01( c).

 

The play you describe is simply a foul ball and an out for runner INT.

 

For me, an out and a strike to the batter does not constitute much of a "reward" for the offense.

[LRZ]

"Not much of a reward" is a question of degree, but a reward nonetheless. Instead of two outs, the offense has just the one, a benefit of its interference. A very different story from a batted ball hitting a bird. Is this similar to a runner committing "an obviously...unsportsmanlike act...to commit an intentional act of interference"? [Not the same, but similar.] I hear you guys, but I remain troubled. If you want to talk about some explaining to do, imagine the storm if the BR hits one over the centerfield wall.

[Mike Prince]

"Not much of a reward" is a question of degree, but a reward nonetheless. Instead of two outs, the offense has just the one, a benefit of its interference. A very different story from a batted ball hitting a bird. Is this similar to a runner committing "an obviously...unsportsmanlike act...to commit an intentional act of interference"? [Not the same, but similar.] I hear you guys, but I remain troubled. If you want to talk about some explaining to do, imagine the storm if the BR hits one over the centerfield wall.

 

But there's no explaining to do since you have rule support to make the proper call on the INT.  This is a case where knowing and applying the proper rule takes any ambiguity or sense of fairness out of the equation.

[grayhawk]

"Not much of a reward" is a question of degree, but a reward nonetheless. Instead of two outs, the offense has just the one, a benefit of its interference. A very different story from a batted ball hitting a bird. Is this similar to a runner committing "an obviously...unsportsmanlike act...to commit an intentional act of interference"? [Not the same, but similar.] I hear you guys, but I remain troubled. If you want to talk about some explaining to do, imagine the storm if the BR hits one over the centerfield wall.

 

What makes you think the defense was going to get two outs absent the interference?  On a play like this, 2 outs would be a major outlier.

[ALStripes17]

"Not much of a reward" is a question of degree, but a reward nonetheless. Instead of two outs, the offense has just the one, a benefit of its interference. A very different story from a batted ball hitting a bird. Is this similar to a runner committing "an obviously...unsportsmanlike act...to commit an intentional act of interference"? [Not the same, but similar.] I hear you guys, but I remain troubled. If you want to talk about some explaining to do, imagine the storm if the BR hits one over the centerfield wall.

There was a previous thread on this exact scenario. The offense is not rewarded at all. Scenario assuming catch (no INT): an out added to the board but still a runner on 3rd. Scenario with INT: out added to board, a strike is added (less than 2 strikes), AND that runner is taken off the bases. As a defense, I find it beneficial to give me an out (which I would have caught anyway), a strike, AND take a runner off 3B!! Yes please. In FED, the caveat is you can get 2 outs where you believe a DP was possible (I.e. runner going on pitch and INT in order to not be 'doubled off'); however, that is an extremely rare scenario with a foul ball

[LRZ]

 

"Not much of a reward" is a question of degree, but a reward nonetheless. Instead of two outs, the offense has just the one, a benefit of its interference. A very different story from a batted ball hitting a bird. Is this similar to a runner committing "an obviously...unsportsmanlike act...to commit an intentional act of interference"? [Not the same, but similar.] I hear you guys, but I remain troubled. If you want to talk about some explaining to do, imagine the storm if the BR hits one over the centerfield wall.

 

What makes you think the defense was going to get two outs absent the interference?  On a play like this, 2 outs would be a major outlier.

 

 

 

I don't see this as "unjust enrichment" to the defense. There are two acts, the batted ball and the interference. Rule 2.00 states, "If a declared Infield Fly is allowed to fall untouched to the ground, and bounces foul before passing first or third base, it is a foul ball." That suggests an intentional act (of omission, if you will) by the fielder that is absent in the situation we are discussing. I simply don't see how the rules apply so clearly to this situation.

 

As I've said, I'm troubled, but I see the sense of what you all argue, but I really don't know what I'd do in this situation. In any event, rather than rehash the same old same old, I will retire from the debate and hope I never have to deal with it.

[FlaUmp22]

 

 

"Not much of a reward" is a question of degree, but a reward nonetheless. Instead of two outs, the offense has just the one, a benefit of its interference. A very different story from a batted ball hitting a bird. Is this similar to a runner committing "an obviously...unsportsmanlike act...to commit an intentional act of interference"? [Not the same, but similar.] I hear you guys, but I remain troubled. If you want to talk about some explaining to do, imagine the storm if the BR hits one over the centerfield wall.

 

What makes you think the defense was going to get two outs absent the interference?  On a play like this, 2 outs would be a major outlier.

 

 

 

I don't see this as "unjust enrichment" to the defense. There are two acts, the batted ball and the interference. Rule 2.00 states, "If a declared Infield Fly is allowed to fall untouched to the ground, and bounces foul before passing first or third base, it is a foul ball." That suggests an intentional act (of omission, if you will) by the fielder that is absent in the situation we are discussing. I simply don't see how the rules apply so clearly to this situation.

 

As I've said, I'm troubled, but I see the sense of what you all argue, but I really don't know what I'd do in this situation. In any event, rather than rehash the same old same old, I will retire from the debate and hope I never have to deal with it.

 

 

It's simple... you learn the rule and the application and in the event you have it in a game, apply it correctly. OR you can do whatever the heck you want and lose a protest, your choice 

 

As an umpire you enforce the rule book, preserving the integrity of the game, and use common sense and fair play when something is not specifically covered. This IS covered so you don't get to pick and choose your own ruling

[LRZ]

If the rule says "allowed to fall untouched...and bounces foul," tell me how that applies to F5's unintentional act, prevented by the runner's interference. That is the crux for me. Cite the language in OBR that seems so clear to you, that specifically covers this situation. I don't think MLBUM addresses this; does anyone with some claim to authority, like Carl Childress, deal with it?

 

Maybe I'm missing something, but I think the IF rules, as written, do not address the interplay between the IF and interference rules. And if it takes a protest and overturned on-the-field ruling, well, that would provide some clarity, wouldn't it? One thing about rules--there is always some factual scenario not envisioned by them.

 

OK, now I'm done, except to admit my error if shown the proof. 

[UmpJM]

LRZ,

 

From the MLBUM:

 

6.7 INFIELD FLY STRIKES RUNNER NOT ON BASE

If a runner is touched by an Infield Fly while not touching a base (provided the ball has not

touched or passed through an infielder), both runner and batter are out, and the ball is dead. See

Official Baseball Rule 7.08(f). See also Sections 8.4 and 8.5.

 

Play: Infield Fly is declared. Runner from first unintentionally interferes with second baseman,

who is attempting to catch the fly ball.

Ruling: On Infield Fly, the ball is alive and in play. Therefore, the runner is out for interference

and the batter-runner is out under the Infield Fly. Other runners return to the base occupied at the

time of interference.

 

 

 

JM

[NavyChiefBlue]

For FED rules, where INT is immediate DB, what if the scenario changes, say R1 interferes with F3 making the play on an uncaught fair IF, (nullifying the IF). Do you leave the BR at first (and other runners at 2nd & 3rd), or bring him back to the batter's box?

[UmpJM]

Chief,

 

1. Interference by a runner with a protected fielder who is attempting to field a batted ball is an immediate dead ball in all codes.

 

2. The interference does NOT nullify the IFF - the BR is out, so you put him back in the dugout.

 

3. Other runners return to their TOP base on the interference.

 

JM

[Mike Prince]

@LRZ, from Carl Childress (BRD, 2011 edition, page 215)

 

(ADDED) Note 294:  BRD recommends you treat interference with an infield fly the same at all levels.

 

*Play 152-316:  Bases loaded, 0 out.  B1 pops up down the third-base line.  The umpire calls:  "Infield fly, if fair!"  R3, who has been bluffing a steal, turns to go back to third and smacks into the third baseman.  Ruling: the umpire calls "That's interference" but he does not stop play!  If the ball when touched is fair, it is an infield fly and both B1 and R3 are out.  If the ball is foul, only R3 is out, even if F5 catches the ball.

 

*Play 153-316:  Bases loaded, 0 out.  B1 pops up down the first-base line.  The ball is fair ("That's an infield fly!" yells the umpire) when B1 interferes.  Ruling:  B1 is out and so is R3, the runner who has advanced nearest to home.

 

*Play 154-316:  R3, 0 out.  B1 lifts a pop foul fly down the third-base line, where: (a) R3 prevents the third baseman from catching the fly; or (b) the third-base coach prevents the catch.  Ruling: (REVISED) In (a), R3 is out and, if B1 has fewer than two strikes, a strike is called.  In (b), B1 is out.

 

 

 

So Carl says the same thing as all of us.  Hope this is good enough for you.

[Jimurray]

When this happened in MLB it was debated in this thread: http://umpire-empire.com/index.php/topic/44585-marlins-dodgers-interference-play

 

BAM posted this info from MLB:

 

"Posted 01 September 2012 - 09:08 AM 

 

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."

[grayhawk]

Good one Jim.  That play involved the Dodgers - I remember it well:

 

http://m.mlb.com/video/v24245337/?query=dodgers%2Binterference

[Jimurray]

Doesn't help, he's off getting vindicated on Official Forum.

[LRZ]

@LRZ, from Carl Childress (BRD, 2011 edition, page 215)

 

(ADDED) Note 294:  BRD recommends you treat interference with an infield fly the same at all levels.

 

*Play 152-316:  Bases loaded, 0 out.  B1 pops up down the third-base line.  The umpire calls:  "Infield fly, if fair!"  R3, who has been bluffing a steal, turns to go back to third and smacks into the third baseman.  Ruling: the umpire calls "That's interference" but he does not stop play!  If the ball when touched is fair, it is an infield fly and both B1 and R3 are out.  If the ball is foul, only R3 is out, even if F5 catches the ball.

 

 

So Carl says the same thing as all of us.  Hope this is good enough for you.

 

If the same discussion in the 2013 edition, see pages 204-2-5. CC says "OBR: point not covered," but adds an official interpretation from Wendelstadt (348-337): If fair, both runner and batter are out; if foul, even if caught, runner out, batter returns to bat). However, CC also postulates this play (I've redacted a bit, for simplicity): 

 

Play 188-337. Bases loaded, 1 out, 0-0 count. B1 hits a pop around third base. As F5 positions himself under the ball, umpire declares IIF. Just as ball is falling, R3 returning to 3d collides with F5 while (a) ball is over fair territory or (b) over foul territory. Ruling: umpire calls time immediately, R3 out for interference. In (a), batter also out on IF. In (b), batter returns to plate, 0-1 count.

 

Does this suggest that the position of the ball when interference occurs is determinative? But CC states in an "added note" that (again, I simplify) the only time a batter could be out is if the ball is fair. There's interference, so somebody is generally out. If ball is touched foul, the batter cannot be out, and only the runner is "dinged."

 

Parenthetically, in the example Mike cites, play 152-316, wouldn't the batter also be out "if F5 catches the ball"? I assume CC means "catches" the ball on the fly, not simply "touches it in foul territory." Wouldn't the catch negate the interference?

[Mike Prince]

I don't think that the position of the ball when the INT happens (especially if it is that close to fair/foul) will determine whether the batter is also out.  Fair or foul cannot be judged until the ball is touched, hits the ground or comes to rest.

 

As far as the catch in foul ground (your second question), the catch negates the IFF because the ball is foul, the catch is not relevant at that point.  It won't negate the INT because the INT happened first.

Edited March 18, 2014 by Mike Prince

[Mike Prince]

 

@LRZ, from Carl Childress (BRD, 2011 edition, page 215)

 

(ADDED) Note 294:  BRD recommends you treat interference with an infield fly the same at all levels.

 

*Play 152-316:  Bases loaded, 0 out.  B1 pops up down the third-base line.  The umpire calls:  "Infield fly, if fair!"  R3, who has been bluffing a steal, turns to go back to third and smacks into the third baseman.  Ruling: the umpire calls "That's interference" but he does not stop play!  If the ball when touched is fair, it is an infield fly and both B1 and R3 are out.  If the ball is foul, only R3 is out, even if F5 catches the ball.

 

 

So Carl says the same thing as all of us.  Hope this is good enough for you.

 

If the same discussion in the 2013 edition, see pages 204-2-5. CC says "OBR: point not covered," but adds an official interpretation from Wendelstadt (348-337): If fair, both runner and batter are out; if foul, even if caught, runner out, batter returns to bat). However, CC also postulates this play (I've redacted a bit, for simplicity): 

 

Play 188-337. Bases loaded, 1 out, 0-0 count. B1 hits a pop around third base. As F5 positions himself under the ball, umpire declares IIF. Just as ball is falling, R3 returning to 3d collides with F5 while (a) ball is over fair territory or (b) over foul territory. Ruling: umpire calls time immediately, R3 out for interference. In (a), batter also out on IF. In (b), batter returns to plate, 0-1 count.

 

Does this suggest that the position of the ball when interference occurs is determinative? But CC states in an "added note" that (again, I simplify) the only time a batter could be out is if the ball is fair. There's interference, so somebody is generally out. If ball is touched foul, the batter cannot be out, and only the runner is "dinged."

 

Parenthetically, in the example Mike cites, play 152-316, wouldn't the batter also be out "if F5 catches the ball"? I assume CC means "catches" the ball on the fly, not simply "touches it in foul territory." Wouldn't the catch negate the interference?

 

 

One last comment - this is why Carl, PBUC and other rule sources/sets (and several of the posts here) say to leave the ball live on the interference - so that it can be judged fair or foul to determine the proper ruling before time is called.  So, no you can't judge the INT and the fair/foul status of the ball in the air simultaneously (I don't see how this is possible anyway) to determine the penalty.  We don't judge an in-play ball fair or foul while it is in flight any other time and there is no reason to try to do it here.

[LRZ]

Thank you for providing a source, and thank you for your reasonable tone in doing so.

[Jimurray]

Thank you for providing a source, and thank you for your reasonable tone in doing so.

 

When all else fails, it helps to peruse the rulebook. This comment was added to Rule 2.00 Infield Fly Definition in 2013:

 

 

 

"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."

[CricketChapman]

Okay.  So I have examined all of this and it leads me to the following conclusion on non-IFF pop-up interference plays:

In OBR, the runner is out.  The ball is dead immediately and the batter-runner is awarded first base, regardless of if the ball is fair or foul (determined by its' landing or first touching).

Is that correct?  That's what I am getting from reading the Wendelstedt quotes.  This is in disagreement with a CC play listed above (154-316).  I would prefer to agree w/ Childress.  Is there any additional authority supporting the position that on a non-IFF the ball should be left alive to determine fair/foul?

[noumpere]

Okay.  So I have examined all of this and it leads me to the following conclusion on non-IFF pop-up interference plays:

In OBR, the runner is out.  The ball is dead immediately and the batter-runner is awarded first base, regardless of if the ball is fair or foul (determined by its' landing or first touching).

 

Not correct.