Infield Fly, Interterence, or Both?

[CJK]

R1, R2, 0 out.

The ball is popped up in infield, playable by the pitcher with ordinary effort (in the judgment of the umpire) and called out as an Infield Fly, and runners retreat to their bases.

The pitcher allows the ball to fall untouched in fair territory, its spin causes it to bounce toward the 1B line, and it touches the BR who is running inside the line (in fair territory).

In the clinic where I heard this example, the guidance given was to get 2 outs on the play (BR on the infield fly, R2 on interference).

In which rule set(s) would the guidance be correct?  In which rule set(s) would the guidance be incorrect?

((Just for the record, this particular clinic was USA Softball.))

[scrounge]

batter's already out and the runners aren't trying to advance - what on earth did he/she interfere with? 

If this is a correct ruling in softball, make this Reason #427 that I will not do that sport.

ETA: read too quickly to see the ball was not clearly fair yet....

[maven]

Interesting play. It's not an infield fly unless it's a fair ball, and clearly it was on its way to becoming foul. If it misses the BR and ends up foul, then we have no outs, but just a foul ball!

So, IFF only if fair. When the BR is struck, then, he (or, I guess, she) is NOT yet out, as fair/foul status has yet to be determined.

So I can see the rationale for getting 2 outs: 1 for IFF, and the other for a runner being struck by a batted ball in fair territory.

To answer the question: same ruling in all (baseball) codes, if that's where we land.

[Jimurray]

38 minutes ago, maven said:

Interesting play. It's not an infield fly unless it's a fair ball, and clearly it was on its way to becoming foul. If it misses the BR and ends up foul, then we have no outs, but just a foul ball!

So, IFF only if fair. When the BR is struck, then, he (or, I guess, she) is NOT yet out, as fair/foul status has yet to be determined.

So I can see the rationale for getting 2 outs: 1 for IFF, and the other for a runner being struck by a batted ball in fair territory.

To answer the question: same ruling in all (baseball) codes, if that's where we land.

MLBUM/PBUC have an interp where if the fielders had an opportunity to field the batted ball and chose not to then the runner is not out and the ball stays live. This might apply in the OP.

[Jimurray]

19 minutes ago, Jimurray said:

MLBUM/PBUC have an interp where if the fielders had an opportunity to field the batted ball and chose not to then the runner is not out and the ball stays live. This might apply in the OP.

So I think I would apply the MLBUM interp. Batter is out when he makes the IFF fair. Ball stays live and no interference.

[beerguy55]

I might be giving the hypothetical fielder too much credit here, but I'm thinking a fielder lets this ball drop hoping R1 and/or R2 get confused and think they have to run - so it would in part, for me, depend on what the runners did after the ball hit the ground - I think if there's any reasonable chance that there could be some play on a runner that could evolve out of this I'd call the second out - in baseball and softball.

The other factor that comes to play for me is once the umpire properly declares IFF (ie. loudly, so it's reasonable to conclude the batter heard it) there is now no reason for the batter to continue running.  He is either out, or it's a foul ball.  I would argue that in this case there is no "advancing the bases normally" argument for this retired runner.

The question this raises, for me, is what is the standard for an already retired runner that is hit by a batted ball - indeed a rare occurrence.    The same scenario could unfold if R1 wasn't paying attention on a fly ball, passed R2 on the bases, and then was hit by the fly ball.  He's already out, so you can't call him out for being hit by a batted ball...what level of tolerance do you apply to any hindrance on any possible subsequent play on the remaining runners.

As far as the timing...although the IFF does not become official until the ball strikes the batter in fair territory (in this scenario), the batter is out immediately after he hits the ball and the ump determines it is an IFF - we are just waiting on the official fair/foul status of the ball.  If it goes foul, the "out" is revoked...or never happened.    In reality, the ball hitting the batter is just one twist on any fair/foul scenario.  The ball could bounce next to the mound, go straight up, and then spin and bounce around and not hit anything in the infield for 45 seconds before becoming officially fair.   The batter was "out" 45 seconds before that.  Think of it as a retroactive status change.

 

[Rich Ives]

1 hour ago, Jimurray said:

MLBUM/PBUC have an interp where if the fielders had an opportunity to field the batted ball and chose not to then the runner is not out and the ball stays live. This might apply in the OP.

Where is that? The IFF rule says that if it  drops untouched and stays fair it's still an IFF.

[Jimurray]

31 minutes ago, Rich Ives said:

Where is that? The IFF rule says that if it  drops untouched and stays fair it's still an IFF.

The interp is only regarding a runner hit by a batted ball when fielders chose not to field it. I’m stretching it to the OP. I have an IFF in the OP. 

[Stk004]

8 hours ago, maven said:

Interesting play. It's not an infield fly unless it's a fair ball, and clearly it was on its way to becoming foul. If it misses the BR and ends up foul, then we have no outs, but just a foul ball!

So, IFF only if fair. When the BR is struck, then, he (or, I guess, she) is NOT yet out, as fair/foul status has yet to be determined.

So I can see the rationale for getting 2 outs: 1 for IFF, and the other for a runner being struck by a batted ball in fair territory.

To answer the question: same ruling in all (baseball) codes, if that's where we land.

Here's the thing, you can't get two outs on the same runner. You made the crucial observation that we don't have an IFF yet because fair/foul has not been determined. 

Here's what I'm thinking. Ball drops, so far we don't have anything other than IFF if fair. Ball strikes the BR in fair territory. We have an IFF and the batter runner was struck by a fair batted ball. He's out. Now, if we're calling him out for contacting the fair batted ball we call time and nobody advances. But, if we're enforcing the out from the IFF, then we revert to a batter or runner that has just been retired interfering with a play being made on any other runner. The IFF is confirmed simultaneously with the batter contacting the ball, so I think the batter contacting the ball should be our prevailing out call, killing the play. He wasn't yet retired when he interfered so I believe it would be improper to enforce that rule. 

[Mister B]

If we call the batter out on the IFF, we could have offensive interference, but since the batter is out already, I would think of this as being spectator interference, dead ball runners return unless the umpire(s) determine that the interference hindered a play on another runner, then that runner would be out. But I'm not seeing that in the OP. 

[beerguy55]

14 hours ago, Stk004 said:

Here's the thing, you can't get two outs on the same runner. You made the crucial observation that we don't have an IFF yet because fair/foul has not been determined. 

Here's what I'm thinking. Ball drops, so far we don't have anything other than IFF if fair. Ball strikes the BR in fair territory. We have an IFF and the batter runner was struck by a fair batted ball. He's out. Now, if we're calling him out for contacting the fair batted ball we call time and nobody advances. But, if we're enforcing the out from the IFF, then we revert to a batter or runner that has just been retired interfering with a play being made on any other runner. The IFF is confirmed simultaneously with the batter contacting the ball, so I think the batter contacting the ball should be our prevailing out call, killing the play. He wasn't yet retired when he interfered so I believe it would be improper to enforce that rule. 

Even though the IFF isn't confirmed until the ball hits the batter (making it a fair ball), the batter is actually out, from a perspective of timing, the moment the umpire declared "IFF if fair"  (if not, technically, at the moment he hit the ball).   Think of it more like "batter's out...oh, wait, the ball went foul, never mind."  At least, IMO, this is how it should be timed - I'd be curious if there is an official position on this.  This, to me, is no different than if it takes the ball 60 seconds to stop bouncing and spinning and settle in fair territory without touching any player....the batter is out retroactively 60 seconds ago.

If this is true, then the retired batter/runner "could" be called for interference resulting in R2 being called out as well - if you judge he interfered with a play on one of the other runners.

10 hours ago, Mister B said:

but since the batter is out already, I would think of this as being spectator interference

It would be retired runner interference....I think.  He becomes a runner the moment the ball is in play...and is immediately retired thereafter.  Of course, we don't know if he's a runner until the ball is ruled fair.

[FleasOf1000Camels]

I don't see any justification for getting 2 outs on this play.

As the batted ball hit the BR in fair territory, the ball would be immediately dead, and the IFF would be enforced.  BR is out, but cant be out twice.

[maven]

Why does the BR have to be out twice? In batter INT, when the batter is out on strikes and interferes, another runner is called out for the batter's INT.

Assuming we find a case where calling 2 outs is appropriate, this objection is no obstacle.

[beerguy55]

49 minutes ago, FleasOf1000Camels said:

I don't see any justification for getting 2 outs on this play.

As the batted ball hit the BR in fair territory, the ball would be immediately dead, and the IFF would be enforced.  BR is out, but cant be out twice.

He's not out twice.  He's out once, for IFF.  And a second out is called if we rule he interfered with a subsequent play on a runner.   Retired Runners can be called for interference....it doesn't make them out twice.

[Jimurray]

47 minutes ago, FleasOf1000Camels said:

I don't see any justification for getting 2 outs on this play.

As the batted ball hit the BR in fair territory, the ball would be immediately dead, and the IFF would be enforced.  BR is out, but cant be out twice.

If the fielder had intentionally dropped the IFF, a more common deke than letting it fall, and the ball hit the BR it would stay live. I'm using the MLBUM interp to keep the ball live as the fielder chose not to field the ball. Batter out and no INT.

[beerguy55]

18 minutes ago, Jimurray said:

If the fielder had intentionally dropped the IFF, a more common deke than letting it fall, and the ball hit the BR it would stay live. I'm using the MLBUM interp to keep the ball live as the fielder chose not to field the ball. Batter out and no INT.

That would be true regardless, because it was touched by the fielder first.   And I think it still brings in the possibility of the retired B/R interfering with a subsequent play on R1/R2.

Whether letting it drop untouched, or fake dropping the ball, the purpose is to confuse the runners into thinking they have to run - in either scenario B/R could be interfering with a play if one of the runners fall for it.  Even if the fielder didn't intend to drop the ball, same scenario occurs - runners get confused, may want to run, could be a play.

[ricka56]

If a legitimate case could be made for calling IFF, BI, or IFF/Retired runner int, then I'd chooser the KISS option, BI. BI kills the play. No runners can advance, no players get to make a hero play or more likely throw the ball into the outfield. If this blows up into a cluster faq (and you have to toss one of the HCs), you'll wish that you called BI. . 

[ricka56]

3 minutes ago, ricka56 said:

If this blows up into a cluster faq (and you have to toss one of the HCs), you'll wish that you called BI. . 

Counterpoint: where's the fun in that.

 

[beerguy55]

5 minutes ago, ricka56 said:

If a legitimate case could be made for calling IFF, BI, or IFF/Retired runner int, then I'd chooser the KISS option, BI. BI kills the play. No runners can advance, no players get to make a hero play or more likely throw the ball into the outfield. If this blows up into a cluster faq (and you have to toss one of the HCs), you'll wish that you called BI. . 

In what alternate universe does this fit the standard of Batter's Interference?

[ricka56]

6 minutes ago, beerguy55 said:

In what alternate universe does this fit the standard of Batter's Interference?

Batted ball strikes the BR in fair territory...if BI is not the correct term,  mea culpa. 

[Jimurray]

29 minutes ago, beerguy55 said:

That would be true regardless, because it was touched by the fielder first.   And I think it still brings in the possibility of the retired B/R interfering with a subsequent play on R1/R2.

Whether letting it drop untouched, or fake dropping the ball, the purpose is to confuse the runners into thinking they have to run - in either scenario B/R could be interfering with a play if one of the runners fall for it.  Even if the fielder didn't intend to drop the ball, same scenario occurs - runners get confused, may want to run, could be a play.

On the dropped IFF the retired runner would be protected if running the bases normally and no intentional act. On the allowed to drop IFF I'm using the MLBUM interp to keep it live without INT.

[beerguy55]

27 minutes ago, Jimurray said:

On th dropped IFF the retired runner would be protected if running the bases normally and no intentional act. On the allowed to drop IFF I'm using the MLBUM interp to keep it live without INT.

OK - I understand what you're saying now.

However, I would go back to my original thought - once IFF is declared, there is no "running the bases normally".  The batter is out, and has no reason to run the bases, or the ball is foul, and he has no reason to run the bases.

To me, the spirit of the rule allowing a retired runner to continue to run the bases is conceding that he might not know he's out.  I would rule an IFF a unique exception to this rule, but it's quite possible the universe of umpires would disagree with me. 

But that aside, yes, I would agree - retired batter/runner Could be protected from interference.   I think it would be much harder on a ball that drops untouched to put the umpire in a position to rule whether or not it was intentional.  But it makes perfect sense when ruling on a runner being hit by a batted ball (between second and third, for example) - because the spirit of the rule is that the runner prevented a fielder from an opportunity - once a fielder has had an opportunity to make a play, the runner is no longer in jeopardy.   

At the same time, I believe there is a lower standard for retired runners.

[Rich Ives]

10 minutes ago, beerguy55 said:

However, I would go back to my original thought - once IFF is declared, there is no "running the bases normally". 

Of course there is. The B-R is running when the IFF is declared.  Even then the B-R is not out until ball is fair.   What do you think the B-R should be doing? 

[beerguy55]

30 minutes ago, ricka56 said:

Batted ball strikes the BR in fair territory...if BI is not the correct term,  mea culpa. 

Yeah...I didn't have to be so snotty.

Once the ball becomes fair he becomes a runner, so no BI.  But interference regardless....which is what the ruling would be if there were no runners on base.

Just comes down to the rule on the timing...is IFF retroactive...or does IFF turn into interference (the same way it can "turn into" a foul ball) if it hits the batter?  We do know that if that same IFF hit R1 you would have two out...it doesn't turn into interference in that scenario, which would then put BR on first base with a hit....it stays IFF for the batter, and adds the second out for R1 interference.   (part of the riddle - how do you get a triple play with the ball never touching a fielder or the ground)

So, I would say IFF is retroactive, and the batter is out for the IFF, not for being hit by the ball in fair territory.

[beerguy55]

5 minutes ago, Rich Ives said:

Of course there is. The B-R is running when the IFF is declared.  Even then the B-R is not out until ball is fair.   What do you think the B-R should be doing? 

If the ball is fair he's out, if the ball is foul...well, it's foul - in either scenario he has no reason to run once IFF has been declared.   Yes, I understand sometimes people need a few steps to slow down.

[Jimurray]

19 minutes ago, beerguy55 said:

OK - I understand what you're saying now.

However, I would go back to my original thought - once IFF is declared, there is no "running the bases normally".  The batter is out, and has no reason to run the bases, or the ball is foul, and he has no reason to run the bases.

To me, the spirit of the rule allowing a retired runner to continue to run the bases is conceding that he might not know he's out.  I would rule an IFF a unique exception to this rule, but it's quite possible the universe of umpires would disagree with me. 

But that aside, yes, I would agree - retired batter/runner Could be protected from interference.   I think it would be much harder on a ball that drops untouched to put the umpire in a position to rule whether or not it was intentional.  But it makes perfect sense when ruling on a runner being hit by a batted ball (between second and third, for example) - because the spirit of the rule is that the runner prevented a fielder from an opportunity - once a fielder has had an opportunity to make a play, the runner is no longer in jeopardy.   

At the same time, I believe there is a lower standard for retired runners.

A retired runner cannot dissappear from the basepath immediately and in fact becomes subject to INT without intent once he peels off. With an IFF the BR might be breaking his run down on the 1B line which would be normal baserunning but even at a full gallop I would not require him to peel off immediately. With R3, batter hits a foul fly just past 1B. It's caught by F3 who throws to 3B to get a sleeping R3 but the ball hits the BR who has overrun 1B. No interference per Wendelstedt.