INT on an IFF?

[scrounge]

So this happened a couple weeks ago in a middle school game. R1 and R2, 1 out. High popup on the infield, so an easy IFF call. R2 started to go but was retreating back to 2B when he runs right into F6 who was under the ball. But right after he does so, F6 re-gathers and makes the catch. It was quite quick, not even enough time for me (as PU) to say "that's interference!". At the time, I thought "ok, cool, he made the catch so no INT needed". It was only about 30 secs later when I second-guessed that it was an IFF so the B/R was already out, if there was INT then R2 should have been out. But now I'm third-guessing and thinking that, yes, there was contact (and it wasn't a wipeout, more of a bump/mild collision) but he still re-gathered and made the catch, so was there really anything interfered with?

 

Not a soul called for a 2nd out...doing so would have been an unusual ruling. Clearly, if he couldn't make the catch, it's INT, but if he makes it anyway? What say ye?

[Jocko]

Is contact INT in and of itself seems to be the question you're asking. Correct?

[scrounge]

Is contact INT in and of itself seems to be the question you're asking. Correct?

 

I guess just some thoughts on it, cause I've clearly over-thought it to the point of over-complicating. I'm thinking first thought was correct - he did hit him and *potentially* interfered, but in the end there was no INT.

[sdix00]

Nothing says you HAVE to call INT on contact.   

 

He either interfered or he didn't.   You used ALL the info available to you and decided there was no interference.   That's what we are supposed to do. 

 

Use the rules to solve problems, not create them. 

[grozzly]

actually, it's nearly unnecessary to call INT in this case. If F6 drops the ball, BR is out, as if F6 would have catched the ball...in the case of an IFF, If R2 voluntary & delibarately interfers with F6,  and prevents him from catching the ball, can you retire both the runner and BR? 

[maven]

actually, it's nearly unnecessary to call INT in this case. If F6 drops the ball, BR is out, as if F6 would have catched the ball...in the case of an IFF, If R2 voluntary & delibarately interfers with F6,  and prevents him from catching the ball, can you retire both the runner and BR? 

 

Careful: that's the OBR standard for getting 2 outs for runner INT with a fielder making a play at a base (thrown ball), not a fielder fielding a batted ball.

 

For a general statement of how to officiate INT, you can't do much better than what @sdix00 says above. And on that basis I could support the ruling in the OP, according to which the fielder was not substantially hindered by the contact. No hindrance = no INT.

 

I will say, however, that depending on the nature of the contact, I have ruled INT even when the fielder can still field the ball. Remember, to be INT, the fielder needs to be hindered, not prevented from making a play. Borderline cases to the defense.

[grozzly]

[Jocko]

If you would have had the runner protected back to his base for OBS had that particular fielder not been the one playing on the ball, thenyou probably should have INT. Slippery slope, but when in doubt, get the out.

[noumpere]

actually, it's nearly unnecessary to call INT in this case. If F6 drops the ball, BR is out, as if F6 would have catched the ball...in the case of an IFF, If R2 voluntary & delibarately interfers with F6,  and prevents him from catching the ball, can you retire both the runner and BR? 

Yes.  100% of the time.

[Stan W.]

Use the rules to solve problems, not create them. 

 

This is umpire wisdom..........it doesn't come easy or cheap.......buts its evident when you get it....

 

well done....well said....

[grozzly]

 

actually, it's nearly unnecessary to call INT in this case. If F6 drops the ball, BR is out, as if F6 would have catched the ball...in the case of an IFF, If R2 voluntary & delibarately interfers with F6,  and prevents him from catching the ball, can you retire both the runner and BR? 

Yes.  100% of the time.

 

     

[Rich Ives]

actually, it's nearly unnecessary to call INT in this case. If F6 drops the ball, BR is out, as if F6 would have catched the ball...in the case of an IFF, If R2 voluntary & delibarately interfers with F6,  and prevents him from catching the ball, can you retire both the runner and BR? 

 

That only applies if he does it to prevent a DP.  As there is generally no DP possible in this situation you can't apply that rule.

[DVA7130]

How I imagine this, I would be calling Time and That's Interference before the ball even came down.

Near the line, and you have the delayed dead ball afforded in OBR's new definition of interference.

[noumpere]

 

actually, it's nearly unnecessary to call INT in this case. If F6 drops the ball, BR is out, as if F6 would have catched the ball...in the case of an IFF, If R2 voluntary & delibarately interfers with F6,  and prevents him from catching the ball, can you retire both the runner and BR? 

 

That only applies if he does it to prevent a DP.  As there is generally no DP possible in this situation you can't apply that rule.

 

Isn't that true only if it's not an Infield Fly.  When it is an Infield Fly, you get two outs without the "DP" criteria.

[PonyUmpire]

By the letter of the rule, you should bang R2 for failing to avoid a fielder attempting to make a play on a batted ball. The fact that there was contact practically necessitates a violation of 7.09 (j). Not sure I would grab that end of the stick though.

[bam]

 

actually, it's nearly unnecessary to call INT in this case. If F6 drops the ball, BR is out, as if F6 would have catched the ball...in the case of an IFF, If R2 voluntary & delibarately interfers with F6,  and prevents him from catching the ball, can you retire both the runner and BR? 

 

That only applies if he does it to prevent a DP.  As there is generally no DP possible in this situation you can't apply that rule.

 

If I've got a baserunner far enough off the base to bundle a fielder waiting to catch an IFF, you better believe I'm getting 2, no matter the rule set.  The OP references minor contact, so I don't envision getting two here, but to state that "there is generally no DP possible in this situation" is sloppy thinking.  

[Senor Azul]

There is an official interpretation from Harry Wendelstedt that appears in his manual and also in Carl Childress' BRD. It is just dated 2013 and reads as follows:

 

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.

 

Play 186-337: R1, R2, 0 out. 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, B1 (not maliciously) 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), B1 is out. In (a) the ball remains alive: B1 is out on the infield fly, and the umpire ignores the interference. The defense may play on R1 or R2. In (b), B1 is out for interference, and the ball is immediately dead. Runners remain TOI.

[Dash Riprock]

 

[Richvee]

There is an official interpretation from Harry Wendelstedt that appears in his manual and also in Carl Childress' BRD. It is just dated 2013 and reads as follows:

 

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.

 

Play 186-337: R1, R2, 0 out. 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, B1 (not maliciously) 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), B1 is out. In (a) the ball remains alive: B1 is out on the infield fly, and the umpire ignores the interference. The defense may play on R1 or R2. In (b), B1 is out for interference, and the ball is immediately dead. Runners remain TOI.

Am I missing something? These two statements are contradicting each other. 

[Senor Azul]

I think I transcribed the text from the BRD correctly and I, too, noticed the seemingly incongruent statements.

 

In my opinion, the Wendelstedt interpretation did not make it clear that it is referring to a situation where the interference causes the infield fly to be missed. In other words, if the protected fielder recovers quickly enough after an interference and manages to make a catch, the batter is out only and the interference is ignored--a normal IFF outcome.

 

If, after an interference, the infield fly is missed both the runner who committed the interference and the batter are out. At least, that is how I reconcile the two statements. And, yes, I realize it creates an incentive for the defense to let the fly ball drop and get two outs after an interference.

[Richvee]

Interesting. Like you said,there's no good reason for a fielder to even try to catch an IFF if he's bumped. Even if he doesn't get the INT call, BR is still out, and he's got a shot at 2 outs if INT is called. He catches it, there's no shot at the DP. 

[grayhawk]

The play is only left live to determine fair/foul. If the ball is fair, the catch/no catch is irrelevant. BR out on the IFF and runner out for interference. On an IFF hit to F6, kill it immediately at the time of the interference.

[Richvee]

The play is only left live to determine fair/foul. If the ball is fair, the cat/no catch is irrelevant. BR out on the IFF and runner out for interference. On an IFF hit to F6, kill it immediately at the time of the interference.

Now that I understand 

[UMP6]

Doesnt interference superceed the infield fly. Can the interference and place batter  at 1st

[Jimurray]

I think Grayhawk clarified this. The rule was added due to an occurrence in MLB:

From the chapter 2, definitions:

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.