what is your ruling(s)

[D62 blue]

A. IFF is in effect , batter pops up near F3 , R1(unintentionally ) tangles and F3 bump as F3 drifts towards the foul line . the officials announce IFF if fair , F3 misses the catch in Foul T . 

B. IFF is in effect , batter pops up near F3 , R1(unintentionally ) tangles  and F3 bump as F3 drifts towards the foul line . the officials announce IFF if fair , F3 makes the catch in Foul T .

C. IFF is in effect , batter pops up near F3 , R1(unintentionally ) tangles and F3 bump as F3 drifts towards the foul line . the officials announce IFF if fair , F3 makes the catch in Fair T .

D. no IFF is in effect , batter pops up near F3 , R1(unintentionally ) tangles and F3 bump as F3 drifts towards the foul line , F3 makes the catch in Fair or foul

E. no IFF is in effect , batter pops up near F3 , R1(intentionally ) tangles and F3 bump as F3 drifts towards the foul line , F3 makes the catch in Fair or foul

F. no IFF is in effect , batter pops up near F3 , R1(intentionally ) tangles and F3 bump as F3 drifts towards the foul line , F3 doesn't make the catch in Fair or foul

 

thanks Marc

[Richvee]

A. IFF is in effect , batter pops up near F3 , R1(unintentionally ) tangles and F3 bump as F3 drifts towards the foul line . the officials announce IFF if fair , F3 misses the catch in Foul T . 

B. IFF is in effect , batter pops up near F3 , R1(unintentionally ) tangles  and F3 bump as F3 drifts towards the foul line . the officials announce IFF if fair , F3 makes the catch in Foul T .

C. IFF is in effect , batter pops up near F3 , R1(unintentionally ) tangles and F3 bump as F3 drifts towards the foul line . the officials announce IFF if fair , F3 makes the catch in Fair T .

D. no IFF is in effect , batter pops up near F3 , R1(unintentionally ) tangles and F3 bump as F3 drifts towards the foul line , F3 makes the catch in Fair or foul

E. no IFF is in effect , batter pops up near F3 , R1(intentionally ) tangles and F3 bump as F3 drifts towards the foul line , F3 makes the catch in Fair or foul

F. no IFF is in effect , batter pops up near F3 , R1(intentionally ) tangles and F3 bump as F3 drifts towards the foul line , F3 doesn't make the catch in Fair or foul

 

thanks Marc

A. Call the INT. When the ball touches F3 glove you know the status of the ball (Foul). R1 out, BR returns to bat with a strike added to the count, if not already 2 strikes.

B. Same as A. Foul. BR returns to bat +1K

C. R1 out. Batter out. (Batter is out because of the IFF. NOT because of the catch. The fact that the ball was touched over fair territory makes it a fair ball, and therefore, batter out under IFF rule. 

D. R1 out, BR to 1st if touched in fair, R1 out BR back to bat if touched in foul. Catch/no catch doesn't matter. Just the fair/foul status of the ball when it touches the glove. 

E. & F If you judge R1's INT to be intentional to break up a possible DP, bang R1 and BR out. (If an R3, he would return) 

[grayhawk]

I agree with Rich above in all cases.  I was looking at the BRD for another play and ran across this:

Play 193-338: R1, R2, 0 outs. 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, BR 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), BR is out. In (a), the ball remains alive: BR is out on the infield fly, and the umpire ignores the interference. The defense may play on R1 or R2. In (b), BR is out for interference, and the ball is immediately dead. Runners remain TOI.

Note 308: A friend of mine read Play 193-338 and said it might need some explication. He actually said that, so allow me to explicate: It’s an “infield fly, if fair.” So the only time the batter could be out is if the ball is fair. There’s interference, so somebody is generally out. Fair ball? Batter is out on the infield fly, and the interference didn’t happen because the batter was out. If the ball is touched foul, then the batter cannot be out. Only the runner in that case gets dinged because he prevented F3 from catching the foul fly.

I disagree with Carl's play above.

[maven]

I disagree with Carl's play above.

 

Join the club.

[ElkOil]

@Richvee, I'm confused about your answer to B. I would think that since F3 caught the ball, that would negate any INT and the batter would be out.

[smckin]

I agree with ElkOIl

[grayhawk]

@Richvee, I'm confused about your answer to B. I would think that since F3 caught the ball, that would negate any INT and the batter would be out.

Catch/no catch is irrelevant on this play.  Once the umpire judges interference (and calls it), there's no going back.  You can't pick up the penalty flag like in football.  Once interference occurs, the ball is dead even though we don't call "time" until we determine the fair/foul status of the ball.  Because of the interference, the "catch" happened during a dead ball.

[grayhawk]

Join the club.

I have a dialogue going with him right now.  He has agreed that the ruling is incorrect - just working with him to have it align with Hunter's OI that is right above the play.

[ElkOil]

Catch/no catch is irrelevant on this play.  Once the umpire judges interference (and calls it), there's no going back.  You can't pick up the penalty flag like in football.  Once interference occurs, the ball is dead even though we don't call "time" until we determine the fair/foul status of the ball.  Because of the interference, the "catch" happened during a dead ball.

In the example in the OP, INT wasn't called -- just that contact occurred.  I absolutely understand your explanation, but don't see it applicable in the example as written.

And if you did call INT, someone's out, yes?  Wouldn't you call R1 out and return BR to the plate?

Edited November 17, 2015 by ElkOil

[jpperez14]

In the example in the OP, INT wasn't called -- just that contact occurred.  I absolutely understand your explanation, but don't see it applicable in the example as written.

And if you did call INT, someone's out, yes?  Wouldn't you call R1 out and return BR to the plate?

B) IFF is in effect , batter pops up near F3 ,R1(unintentionally ) tangles  and F3 bump as F3 drifts towards the foul line . the officials announce IFF if fair , F3makes the catch in Foul T .

The OP doesn't say INT was called, if it wasn't, it would just be BR out on pop fly and ball is live. 

The correct call I believe would be INT, R1 is out, BR returns to bat, but it's one you'd have to see it actually happen.

[grayhawk]

In the example in the OP, INT wasn't called -- just that contact occurred.  I absolutely understand your explanation, but don't see it applicable in the example as written.

And if you did call INT, someone's out, yes?  Wouldn't you call R1 out and return BR to the plate?

True, but it's a pretty silly question if interference wasn't called.

[Richvee]

I'm assuming interference has occurred in all the examples in the OP. Otherwise, there's no rulings to make. 

[Richvee]

@Richvee, I'm confused about your answer to B. I would think that since F3 caught the ball, that would negate any INT and the batter would be out.

I hope Greyhawk answered this to your satisfaction. Just remember, once we call interference , the play is over for all intents and purposes. The only reason we're watching what F3 does after the call is to determine fair/ foul. Nothing else, including catch/ no catch matters. 

[grayhawk]

I have a dialogue going with him right now.  He has agreed that the ruling is incorrect - just working with him to have it align with Hunter's OI that is right above the play.

Well, he decided the pull the play and insert one from Wendelstedt instead.  It will be reflected in the 2017 BRD.

[ricka56]

Well, he decided the pull the play and insert one from Wendelstedt instead.  It will be reflected in the 2017 BRD.

Well done ! 

[Jimurray]

Well, he decided the pull the play and insert one from Wendelstedt instead.  It will be reflected in the 2017 BRD.

Does the Wendelstedt play involve a batter-runner?

[grayhawk]

Does the Wendelstedt play involve a batter-runner?

He didn't say which play he was going to use.  It was a strange email discussion.  We had a great dialogue going about the play, and he made some changes but he still had the ball live after the catch and ignoring the interference.  I made some suggested changes and then he went off the rails because I used the phrase "the ball should be kept live" (until fair/foul could be determined).  Because of that, he scrapped the whole thing.  Here is the text of the play as I wanted it to be written:

(revised) Play 193-338: R1, R2,  0 outs. B1 pops up near the first-base line. The umpire declares: "Infield fly if fair." As F3 is waiting in fair territory to catch the fly, R1 trying to return to first bumps into him. The umpire calls: "That’s interference!" The first baseman touches the ball in (a) fair territory and makes the catch or drops it; or (b) foul territory and makes the catch or drops it. Ruling: In (a) and (b), R1 is out for interference and the ball should be kept live until the fair/foul status of the ball is determined.  In (a), because the ball was fair, BR is out on the infield fly.  In (b), because the ball was foul, the BR returns to bat with a strike added to his count (unless he already had two strikes.) R2 remains at the base he occupied at TOI.

[Jimurray]

He didn't say which play he was going to use.  It was a strange email discussion.  We had a great dialogue going about the play, and he made some changes but he still had the ball live after the catch and ignoring the interference.  I made some suggested changes and then he went off the rails because I used the phrase "the ball should be kept live" (until fair/foul could be determined).  Because of that, he scrapped the whole thing.  Here is the text of the play as I wanted it to be written:

(revised) Play 193-338: R1, R2,  0 outs. B1 pops up near the first-base line. The umpire declares: "Infield fly if fair." As F3 is waiting in fair territory to catch the fly, R1 trying to return to first bumps into him. The umpire calls: "That’s interference!" The first baseman touches the ball in (a) fair territory and makes the catch or drops it; or (b) foul territory and makes the catch or drops it. Ruling: In (a) and (b), R1 is out for interference and the ball should be kept live until the fair/foul status of the ball is determined.  In (a), because the ball was fair, BR is out on the infield fly.  In (b), because the ball was foul, the BR returns to bat with a strike added to his count (unless he already had two strikes.) R2 remains at the base he occupied at TOI.

In Carl's play the B-R interfered. In your play above you have R1 interfering. I'm wondering if Carl is correct in having the B-R out whether fair or foul. I do agree that in Carl's play the ball is dead at the sdetermination of fair or foul. B-R crashes F3 standing under an infield fly on the line. The ball lands fair and bounces foul. B-R goes back to bat with a strike?

[grayhawk]

In Carl's play the B-R interfered. In your play above you have R1 interfering. I'm wondering if Carl is correct in having the B-R out whether fair or foul. I do agree that in Carl's play the ball is dead at the sdetermination of fair or foul. B-R crashes F3 standing under an infield fly on the line. The ball lands fair and bounces foul. B-R goes back to bat with a strike?

You're right - I misread that the BR is the one who interfered.

[lawump]

In the example in the OP, INT wasn't called -- just that contact occurred.  I absolutely understand your explanation, but don't see it applicable in the example as written.

And if you did call INT, someone's out, yes?  Wouldn't you call R1 out and return BR to the plate?

In OBR, if interference is called on R1 (or R2, or R3) on an IFF, R1 is out immediately for the interference.  The B/R is out on the IFF if the batted ball lands (or is caught) fair.  If the batted ball is foul (whether or not it is caught) the batter is returned to bat with a strike added to his count (unless he already had two strikes).

This interpretation was added to the MLB and MiLB umpire's manual 3 or 4 years ago after a confusing play involving the Dodgers and this very situation.

[maven]

In OBR, if interference is called on R1 (or R2, or R3) on an IFF, R1 is out immediately for the interference.  The B/R is out on the IFF if the batted ball lands (or is caught) fair.  If the batted ball is foul (whether or not it is caught) the batter is returned to bat with a strike added to his count (unless he already had two strikes).

This interpretation was added to the MLB and MiLB umpire's manual 3 or 4 years ago after a confusing play involving the Dodgers and this very situation.

Your way of explaining the case seems slightly confusing: some might wonder, if R1 interferes, why isn't the BR out when the ball is caught?

The answer is that, after runner INT, a fly ball (fair or foul) cannot be caught for an out. The ball remains live only where necessary to determine fair/foul: had it been hit over 2B on IFF, it would be dead immediately on the runner INT.

Since it's near the line, we leave it live to determine fair/foul. That happens the instant a fielder touches it, at which time it becomes dead immediately. Since touching precedes possession, the fielder catches a dead ball, and so (if foul) the batter is not out.

[lawump]

Your way of explaining the case seems slightly confusing: some might wonder, if R1 interferes, why isn't the BR out when the ball is caught?

The answer is that, after runner INT, a fly ball (fair or foul) cannot be caught for an out. The ball remains live only where necessary to determine fair/foul: had it been hit over 2B on IFF, it would be dead immediately on the runner INT.

Since it's near the line, we leave it live to determine fair/foul. That happens the instant a fielder touches it, at which time it becomes dead immediately. Since touching precedes possession, the fielder catches a dead ball, and so (if foul) the batter is not out.

I haven't thought about long...but my initial reaction is that I agree with what you typed.  I don't think the writers of the OBR interpretation thought about the nuances of live/dead when they wrote it, but I think what you posted is the natural outcome of the interpretation of what you wrote.

[Welpe]

Sorry to drag this up but I'm curious, @grayhawk and @maven, which part of Carl's play do you disagree with? Is it keeping the ball live and ignoring the interference if the ball stays fair?

[grayhawk]

29 minutes ago, Welpe said:

Sorry to drag this up but I'm curious, @grayhawk and @maven, which part of Carl's play do you disagree with? Is it keeping the ball live and ignoring the interference if the ball stays fair?

Yes, I disagree with that part.  The umpire called interference, so I don't see any way of reversing that call if the ball is caught or touched fair.  Yes, the BR is out anyway on the IFF, but even if you say that he was already out when he interfered, then this would be interference on a retired runner which means you have to get another out.