IFF, interference, or nothing

[LMSANS]

LL big league (18u) bases loaded, 0 out, infield in.  B4 hits a pop up behind 2B, about 10 feet to sis side on the outfield grass.  SS turns to give chase and runs into R2 who is returning to 2B.

i gave the "that's nothing" signal, ball drops in front of F8 who bumbles it. All runners safe.

My thinking here was...no IFF, therefore no interference.

if I thought F6 could make the catch, I could have IFF and interference for 2 out?

[Richvee]

The way I'm seeing this play, I don't have an IFF situation unless I've got F6 camped under the pop up or at least with a pretty easy bead on the ball and is going to be there in plenty time for the catch. This sounds more like F6 would have had to really hustle to get there and make a catch. Now the question is, is F6 your protected fielder? Or did F8 have the better chance at caching the ball sans any contact between F6 and R2.

I think if you believe F6 had an easy path to catch the fly without the contact, then IFF and INT, 2 outs. 

 

[maven]

Sounds like INT whether or not you rule IFF. Where in the runner INT rule does it say "except if the fielder is attempting to catch an infield fly?"

Somebody might argue that F6 wasn't hindered, since his catch doesn't put anyone out. But the putout is only half the story: he's also preventing R3 from scoring when he gets possession of the ball (and R3 doesn't have to retouch if he doesn't catch the ball). That's hindrance enough.

Sounds as if you might have over-thunk this one a bit, Larry. And yes, if this is both INT and IFF, you get 2 outs (one for each: again, neither rule includes an exception for the other).

[BCBrad]

I don't know, but the contact is either interference or obstruction. If F6 did not have a play on the ball, then it would be obstruction. 

IFF is a fly ball that can be played by an infielder with ordinary effort, but that does not mean that an infielder (your case ss) still cannot make a great catch on the play. If you thought that the contact prevented the ss from making a play, then call interference. To this, my hypothetical of this play is this, what if the ss does not get there in time but takes the ball on the bounce and gets R1 at 2nd on the force. Can you conclude that while he could not catch the ball, the ss could have made a play? If he could have made a play, I think it would be interference. R2 is out. 

 

 

[LMSANS]

I get it...not necessarily interference with the catch, but with fielding the ball.

another lesson learned.