iff and interference

[Guest NJ Coach]

bases loaded 1 out. BR hits pop up along 1BL. PU signals and calls "IFF BR out if fair." As F3 is making a play on the ball R1 commits interference on F3. The ball lands fair about 3 feet in front of 1b and then bounces foul before the bag. Had there been no INT everyone was in agreement that the ball would've been caught in fair territory. Whats the call?

[Stk004]

The ball landed and rolled foul untouched, correct? 

So we don't have an infield fly because the ball was not fair. We do, however, have interference on R1. Since the ball was foul, R1 is out for interference and the batter returns to the plate with a strike added (unless there was already two strikes). 

[grayhawk]

...

[beerguy55]

20 minutes ago, Stk004 said:

The ball landed and rolled foul untouched, correct? 

So we don't have an infield fly because the ball was not fair. We do, however, have interference on R1. Since the ball was foul, R1 is out for interference and the batter returns to the plate with a strike added (unless there was already two strikes). 

If the ball ended up fair (or caught) we would have two outs, no?    Meaning R1 is out no matter what happens to the ball?

This one's interesting because F3 doesn't even have to catch it...he only has to touch it in fair territory to get the batter out.

[Stk004]

12 minutes ago, beerguy55 said:

If the ball ended up fair (or caught) we would have two outs, no?    Meaning R1 is out no matter what happens to the ball?

This one's interesting because F3 doesn't even have to catch it...he only has to touch it in fair territory to get the batter out.

Two separate questions. 1. What happens if the ball is fair (caught or otherwise)?      2. What happens if the ball is caught in foul territory? 

1. If the ball is fair, we now have IFF so the batter is out. We also have interference on R1, so he's out as well. In this case we have two outs. 

2. If the ball is caught in foul territory we do not have IFF, so the batter is not out. R1 is called out for interference, batter returns to the plate with a strike added just as he did in the OP. 

Edited May 6, 2019 by Stk004
Hit tab and it saved. Oops

[grayhawk]

7 minutes ago, beerguy55 said:

If the ball ended up fair (or caught) we would have two outs, no?    Meaning R1 is out no matter what happens to the ball?

This one's interesting because F3 doesn't even have to catch it...he only has to touch it in fair territory to get the batter out.

Once the interference occurs, we need refrain from calling time until the fair/foul status of the ball can be determined.  Whether he catches the ball or not is completely irrelevant.

When the elements of an IFF are present and a runner interferes:

1.  If the batted ball is a fair ball, then the BR is out on the IFF and the runner that interfered is out for interference.
2.  If the batted ball is a foul ball, then the BR returns to bat with a strike added to his count, unless he already had two strikes.  The runner that interfered is out for interference.

When the elements for an IFF are NOT present and a runner interferes:

1.  If the batted ball is a fair ball, the runner that interfered is out for interference and the BR is awarded first.  However, if the umpire judges that the interference prevented a double play (willful and deliberate in OBR, no intent necessary in FED), then the BR would also be declared out.
2.  If the batted ball is a foul ball, then the BR returns to bat with a strike added to his count, unless he already had two strikes.  The runner that interfered is out for interference.

[Stk004]

I've posted this play a bunch on this forum but it's a good one. U1 (Barksdale) calls interference once it happens. Notice, however, he doesn't call time immediately. He waits for the ball to be touched (in this case caught) before making his decision. You can see the gears turning. He calls the runner out then decides that since the ball is fair the batter will be awarded first base. Had the ball been foul, the batter would go back to the plate. 

 

Edited May 6, 2019 by Stk004
Barksdale not Timmons

[Guest NJ Coach]

Thanks. Do you guys have a rules reference? Im not sure if it matters (prob not since no one brought it up) but the game was under HS rules.

[grayhawk]

47 minutes ago, Guest NJ Coach said:

Thanks. Do you guys have a rules reference? Im not sure if it matters (prob not since no one brought it up) but the game was under HS rules.

There is no specific provision on this play in FED, other than piecing together several rules.

8-4-1: A batter-runner is out when:

j.  hits an infield fly and the infield-fly rule is in effect;

2-19: An infield fly is a fair fly (not including a line drive nor an attempted bunt) which can be caught by an infielder with ordinary effort,

8-4-2: Any runner is out when he:

g. hinders a fielder on his initial attempt to field a batted ball.

5-1-1:  Ball becomes dead immediately when:

e.  there is interference by a runner

----------------

What was the ruling on the field?

 

[Guest NJ Coach]

19 hours ago, grayhawk said:

There is no specific provision on this play in FED, other than piecing together several rules.

8-4-1: A batter-runner is out when:

j.  hits an infield fly and the infield-fly rule is in effect;

2-19: An infield fly is a fair fly (not including a line drive nor an attempted bunt) which can be caught by an infielder with ordinary effort,

8-4-2: Any runner is out when he:

g. hinders a fielder on his initial attempt to field a batted ball.

5-1-1:  Ball becomes dead immediately when:

e.  there is interference by a runner

----------------

What was the ruling on the field?

 

They ruled 1 out on the field. I thought it was two but didn't bother to persist other than ask for an explanation because a) we were up by 8. b) im never that coach and try to to teach my players to respect the officials regardless of whether you agree or not. 

 

my question is tho (and im not disagreeing moreso playing devils advocate/digging deeper) is if the ball is dead immediately on runners interfernce does the ball ever become foul if time is called when the interference happens?

[maven]

21 minutes ago, Guest NJ Coach said:

my question is tho (and im not disagreeing more so playing devils advocate/digging deeper) is if the ball is dead immediately on runners interfernce does the ball ever become foul if time is called when the interference happens?

That's actually the (unwritten) exception to the runner INT rule. I don't know that FED has offered any guidance, but pro instruction (where the rules for INT and IFF are substantially the same, at least as they apply to this case) is to leave the ball live until its fair/foul status is determined, then kill it and assess penalties.

[Jimurray]

5 minutes ago, maven said:

That's actually the (unwritten) exception to the runner INT rule. I don't know that FED has offered any guidance, but pro instruction (where the rules for INT and IFF are substantially the same, at least as they apply to this case) is to leave the ball live until its fair/foul status is determined, then kill it and assess penalties.

In OBR it was an unwritten instruction until it actually happened and was called correctly. The next year this comment was added in the Infield Fly definition:

"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."

 

[Senor Azul]

Mr. Jimurray, I think you might be referring to the following play because it was 2013 when the rules were changed. Not only was the definition of the term infield fly changed but they also had to amend the definition of interference. They amended Rule 2.00 (INTERFERENCE) by deleting the last sentence, “On any interference the ball is dead” in order to account for cases where interference does not result in an immediate dead ball (e.g., batter’s interference, catcher’s interference, etc.).

Aug. 26, 2012, Miami at Los Angeles, bottom of 7^th, 0 outs, R1 (Ethier) and R2 (Gonzalez). B1 pops up. F1 (Gaudin), F2 (Brantly), and F3 (Lee) head for the easy catch. There is a collision between Lee and Ethier. U1 (Todd Tichenor) says: “That’s interference.” The ball falls into foul territory while R2 goes to third. Ruling:  The umpires allowed the play to continue even though Ethier’s interference should have created an immediate dead ball. After a 10-minute consultation, the result: R1 is out, batter returns to the plate with a strike, R2 to second.

[Jimurray]

3 hours ago, Senor Azul said:

Mr. Jimurray, I think you might be referring to the following play because it was 2013 when the rules were changed. Not only was the definition of the term infield fly changed but they also had to amend the definition of interference. They amended Rule 2.00 (INTERFERENCE) by deleting the last sentence, “On any interference the ball is dead” in order to account for cases where interference does not result in an immediate dead ball (e.g., batter’s interference, catcher’s interference, etc.).

Aug. 26, 2012, Miami at Los Angeles, bottom of 7^th, 0 outs, R1 (Ethier) and R2 (Gonzalez). B1 pops up. F1 (Gaudin), F2 (Brantly), and F3 (Lee) head for the easy catch. There is a collision between Lee and Ethier. U1 (Todd Tichenor) says: “That’s interference.” The ball falls into foul territory while R2 goes to third. Ruling:  The umpires allowed the play to continue even though Ethier’s interference should have created an immediate dead ball. After a 10-minute consultation, the result: R1 is out, batter returns to the plate with a strike, R2 to second.

Yes that's the play that gave the impetus to the rules clarifications. But who is quoted as saying "interference should have..."?  My 2011 BRD has a PBUC interp from early 2000 that advises to keep the ball live until it's status can be determined and then get either 1 or 2 outs depending. I think the Wendelstedt manual also cited the interp but did not like it.

[johnnyg08]

That's right. This play (2012) forced the change in 2013.

 

[Jimurray]

1 hour ago, johnnyg08 said:

That's right. This play (2012) forced the change in 2013.

 

There was no change. They just added the unwritten interp to the rulebook.

[johnnyg08]

36 minutes ago, Jimurray said:

There was no change. They just added the unwritten interp to the rulebook.

Well, we might be splitting hairs...but in 2012 under Interference it reads "On any interference, the ball is dead"

In 2013, they removed "On any interference, the ball is dead" and added the bit in "Infield Fly" about keeping the ball live until its status is determined. 

I guess i would consider it to be a change.

 

 

[Jimurray]

8 minutes ago, johnnyg08 said:

Well, we might be splitting hairs...but in 2012 under Interference it reads "On any interference, the ball is dead"

In 2013, they removed "On any interference, the ball is dead" and added the bit in "Infield Fly" about keeping the ball live until its status is determined. 

I guess i would consider it to be a change.

 

 

Good point, while Evans cites this as an error in the book much earlier, this was an actual change to the INT definition. I was focused on the unwritten mechanic not being a change.

[Rich Ives]

On 5/6/2019 at 1:51 PM, Guest NJ Coach said:

bases loaded 1 out. BR hits pop up along 1BL. PU signals and calls "IFF BR out if fair." As F3 is making a play on the ball R1 commits interference on F3. The ball lands fair about 3 feet in front of 1b and then bounces foul before the bag. Had there been no INT everyone was in agreement that the ball would've been caught in fair territory. Whats the call?

Where was R1 that he could interfere with a play on  the home plate side of the base? At what  point in the flight did the interference happen?

[Senor Azul]

Not just a good point, it’s a correct point. Mr. johnnyg08, you and the MLB consider those changes to be changes to the rules. The 2013 edition of the OBR lists the rule changes in the front matter—here are two of them:

Summary of Rule Changes for 2013

• Amended Rule 2.00 (INFIELD FLY) Comment to include the situation when interference occurs during an Infield Fly.

• Amended Rule 2.00 (INTERFERENCE) by deleting the last sentence, “On any interference the ball is dead” in order to account for cases where interference does not result in an immediate dead ball (e.g., batter’s interference, catcher’s interference, etc.).

[mac266]

On 5/6/2019 at 12:30 PM, Stk004 said:

2. If the ball is caught in foul territory we do not have IFF, so the batter is not out. R1 is called out for interference, batter returns to the plate with a strike added just as he did in the OP. 

Ummm....if anyone on the defense catches a batted ball, the batter is out.  He's not out on the IFF, but he's out on the catch.

[Senor Azul]

2021 OBR Definitions of Terms

(Infield Fly) Comment: On the infield fly rule the umpire is to rule whether the ball could ordinarily have been handled by an infielder-not by some arbitrary limitation such as the grass, or the base lines. The umpire must rule also that a ball is an infield fly, even if handled by an outfielder, if, in the umpire’s judgment, the ball could have been as easily handled by an infielder. The infield fly is in no sense to be considered an appeal play. The umpire’s judgment must govern, and the decision should be made immediately. When an infield fly rule is called, runners may advance at their own risk. If on an infield fly rule, the infielder intentionally drops a fair ball, the ball remains in play despite the provisions of Rule 5.09(a)(12). The infield fly rule takes precedence. 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.

[maven]

1 hour ago, mac266 said:

Ummm....if anyone on the defense catches a batted ball, the batter is out.  He's not out on the IFF, but he's out on the catch.

This is incorrect.

[mac266]

On 3/10/2022 at 5:32 PM, maven said:

This is incorrect.

You can catch a foul ball for an out.  This is baseball 101.  So you have me greatly confused.

[Senor Azul]

Mr. mac266, you have me greatly confused. I posted something that if you had read it would have told you not only that you were wrong but why. The reason is in the actual definitions—baseball 101. Also please note that I did not come right out and say you were wrong—I just posted what would refute your previous post. Here is the money line from the definition again--

If foul, even if caught, the runner is out and the batter returns to bat.

[MadMax]

21 minutes ago, mac266 said:

You can catch a foul ball for an out. 

But you’re missing that any time Interference (INT) is called, the ball is immediately dead. Whether it lands caught in a fielder’s glove or not is inconsequential save one ☝🏼 key factor – whether it was to be Fair or Foul.