INFIELD FLY and INTERFERENCE

[Guest mrumpiresir]

Is the batter immediately out on an infield fly, making this interference by a retired runner, or is the batter not out until the batted ball is determined to be fair?  

Would you get two outs on this play or only one because of the interference?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TfF0BL2SSC8&lc=z232el0hvonbvhvl2acdp432molxflngvjmwpgax3r1w03c010c.1566059262369918

[maven]

The batter is out "immediately." The delay caused by determining fair/foul is only whether the fly ball is an IFF or not: it is, as it were, epistemic and not metaphysical.

That is, instantly off the bat, a ball's path is determined by the laws of physics: it is or is not an IFF instantly (that's the "metaphysics"). But we do not know whether it is an IFF that fast, and in some cases (fair/foul TBD, for instance), we have to wait until it comes all the way down. That's a delay in our ruling, but not in the status of the IFF: if it's an IFF at the end, it was an IFF all along. And the batter was out "immediately."

But I'm not sure that difference bears on your question: the delay in the call is sufficient NOT to rule such a player a "retired runner" and subject him to the higher standard of INT. It's not reasonable to expect the runner to behave differently without knowing his status as retired.

In the video, I'm not sure I have INT of any description. The BR (retired or not) does what she's supposed to do and avoids the protected fielder. I don't see any hindrance obvious enough to be ruled INT.

[johnnyg08]

An infield fly is a "fair fly ball" (Wendelstedt 2015) 

By rule, I don't think the batter/runner is officially "out" until the batted ball becomes a fair ball. In situations where there is little doubt as to whether or not the ball is fair, it works out all the same.

In this case, since interference was the call on the field, the status of the batted ball has not yet been determined because it was still airborne so we don't know if the batted ball is fair or foul. 

On runner or batter/runner interference, the ball is immediately dead at the time of the interference. 

On this play, assuming we agree on interference, I think the proper call is to call the batter/runner out for interference (immediate dead ball) everything that happens after that is moot including the status of the batted ball. 

Batter-runner out. Return runners to their Time of Pitch base. 

 

 

[The Man in Blue]

Well ... I didn’t initially agree with this, but after digging into the NFHS rules ...

Rule 2 Definitions

SECTION 30 INFIELD FLY RULE Infield fly rule is, when declared by the umpire, a fair fly (not including a line drive or an attempted bunt) that can be caught by an infielder with ordinary effort when runners are on first and second or all three bases are occupied and before there are two outs in the inning. Any defensive player positioned in the infield at the time of the pitch shall be considered an infielder for the purposes of this rule. The rule does not preclude outfielders from being permitted to make the catch. The ball is live, the batter is out, which removes the force, but runners may advance at their own risk. The runners may tag up and advance as soon as the batted ball is touched by a fielder. If a declared infield fly becomes foul, it is treated as a foul ball, not an infield fly.

The definition indicates the batter is immediately out (remember, the declaration is not needed).  Should the ball become a foul ball, the ruling is reversed and treated as a foul ball.  The batter is NOT granted some mystic status between out and safe during the ball’s flight.

SECTION 50 RUNNER, RETIRED RUNNER

ART. 1 . . . Runner. A runner is an offensive player who is advancing to, touching or returning to a base.

ART. 2 . . . Retired Runner. A retired runner is a player who has scored, or who has been put out and who is still in live-ball territory.

Ergo, the batter runner is now a retired runner (to be reversed ONLY after the ball is foul IF it ends up being a foul ball).  Which takes us to:

SECTION 6 THE RUNNER IS OUT

A runner is out when:

ART. 16 . . . Any coach or member of the offensive team, other than a runner, interferes with a defensive player’s opportunity to make a play. This includes, but is not limited to:

c. After being declared out or after scoring, a runner interferes with a defensive player's opportunity to make a play on another runner. A runner continuing to run and drawing a throw may be considered a form of interference. This does not apply to the batter-runner running on the dropped third strike rule.

PENALTY: (Art. 16) The ball is dead and the runner closest to home plate at the time of the interference shall be declared out. Each other runner must return to the last base touched at the time of the interference.

Pretty cut and dry.  Personally, I was inclined to give the batter runner the same status we grant on a dropped third strike ... that is to say we grant the batter runner the natural tendency of running out the play and we put the onus on the defense to know the situation.  However, since 6-16-c specifically grants that status only on dropped third strike, we cannot use it here.

Ruling: The batter becomes a retired runner upon hitting the fly ball (infield fly = out).  The retired runner does not have any protection, so the interference with F3 is indeed interference by a retired runner.  The runner attempting to score is also out by rule.

Now, you can argue that the retired runner did not interfere, and I suppose that is a judgment call on the interference.  Personally, the retired runner had no right to continue running, thus had no right to be where she was at.  She took a path directly between the fielder and the ball as the fielder was moving towards the ball.  It is difficult to tell if the fielder makes the last second “lunge” because she misjudged it or because of the retired runner.  Since the retired runner shouldn’t have been there and failed to vacate the area, I have an interference call.

 

 

[johnnyg08]

12 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

Well ... I didn’t initially agree with this, but after digging into the NFHS rules ...

Rule 2 Definitions

SECTION 30 INFIELD FLY RULE Infield fly rule is, when declared by the umpire, a fair fly (not including a line drive or an attempted bunt) that can be caught by an infielder with ordinary effort when runners are on first and second or all three bases are occupied and before there are two outs in the inning. Any defensive player positioned in the infield at the time of the pitch shall be considered an infielder for the purposes of this rule. The rule does not preclude outfielders from being permitted to make the catch. The ball is live, the batter is out, which removes the force, but runners may advance at their own risk. The runners may tag up and advance as soon as the batted ball is touched by a fielder. If a declared infield fly becomes foul, it is treated as a foul ball, not an infield fly.

The definition indicates the batter is immediately out (remember, the declaration is not needed).  Should the ball become a foul ball, the ruling is reversed and treated as a foul ball.  The batter is NOT granted some mystic status between out and safe during the ball’s flight.

SECTION 50 RUNNER, RETIRED RUNNER

ART. 1 . . . Runner. A runner is an offensive player who is advancing to, touching or returning to a base.

ART. 2 . . . Retired Runner. A retired runner is a player who has scored, or who has been put out and who is still in live-ball territory.

Ergo, the batter runner is now a retired runner (to be reversed ONLY after the ball is foul IF it ends up being a foul ball).  Which takes us to:

SECTION 6 THE RUNNER IS OUT

A runner is out when:

ART. 16 . . . Any coach or member of the offensive team, other than a runner, interferes with a defensive player’s opportunity to make a play. This includes, but is not limited to:

c. After being declared out or after scoring, a runner interferes with a defensive player's opportunity to make a play on another runner. A runner continuing to run and drawing a throw may be considered a form of interference. This does not apply to the batter-runner running on the dropped third strike rule.

PENALTY: (Art. 16) The ball is dead and the runner closest to home plate at the time of the interference shall be declared out. Each other runner must return to the last base touched at the time of the interference.

Pretty cut and dry.  Personally, I was inclined to give the batter runner the same status we grant on a dropped third strike ... that is to say we grant the batter runner the natural tendency of running out the play and we put the onus on the defense to know the situation.  However, since 6-16-c specifically grants that status only on dropped third strike, we cannot use it here.

Ruling: The batter becomes a retired runner upon hitting the fly ball (infield fly = out).  The retired runner does not have any protection, so the interference with F3 is indeed interference by a retired runner.  The runner attempting to score is also out by rule.

Now, you can argue that the retired runner did not interfere, and I suppose that is a judgment call on the interference.  Personally, the retired runner had no right to continue running, thus had no right to be where she was at.  She took a path directly between the fielder and the ball as the fielder was moving towards the ball.  It is difficult to tell if the fielder makes the last second “lunge” because she misjudged it or because of the retired runner.  Since the retired runner shouldn’t have been there and failed to vacate the area, I have an interference call.

 

 

Sound reasoning...but the issue I have with this interpretation is that the ruling could literally change over the course of the game and certainly from game to game. 

If the timing of the declaration or failure to declare is the test as to when the batter runner is "out" that changes how the play would be officiated.

Failure to declare or declared after the interference call, then we have a different call than if it were declared prior to the interference. (Let's just agree that it's interference b/c that's not what's debated here) 

I guess in my mind, the timing of the umpire(s)' declaration of IFF or not, should not be the determining factor as to whether or not we get one or two outs here. 

I will maintain that we need a fair ball for there to be an IFF. When the ball is in flight, we don't have a fair or foul ball. Runner interference does not require us to decide if the ball is fair or foul, only if the defense was hindered or impeded from making a play on a batted ball. 

Thanks for the continued debate. I think there is already a thread on this, but I'm fine letting this one continue here with the support of the other mods. 

Thanks again

[The Man in Blue]

The declaration (or lack of) is completely irrelevant on an infield fly.  The existence of the situation is what matters.  The batter is out once the ball is hit (popped up).

You are correct that you need a fair ball.  However you are incorrect in thinking the ball is neither fair nor foul while in flight.  The language of the rule indicates the batter is out until it is a foul ball.  There is no time in between and no “indeterminate” status.

As you pointed out, fair/foul doesn’t change the interference ... it only changes the status of the former batter (now either a batter-runner or a retired runner) which changes the penalty.

[johnnyg08]

8 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

The declaration (or lack of) is completely irrelevant on an infield fly.  The existence of the situation is what matters.  The batter is out once the ball is hit (popped up).

You are correct that you need a fair ball.  However you are incorrect in thinking the ball is neither fair nor foul while in flight.  The language of the rule indicates the batter is out until it is a foul ball.  There is no time in between and no “indeterminate” status.

As you pointed out, fair/foul doesn’t change the interference ... it only changes the status of the former batter (now either a batter-runner or a retired runner) which changes the penalty.

Perhaps. Sound reasoning. 

I struggle with getting 2 outs minus something intentional by the batter runner. Unless we somehow determine the running the bases after being put out in and of itself is interference (which it isn't by rule) 

Just seems like a REALLY stiff penalty for a very minimal infraction...not that those can't happen, but I don't feel like that's how and why the rules were written. After all, IFF is in place to protect the offense from cheap double plays...this might be the cheapest of cheap double plays. IFF or interference by the B/R gets the defense one out I could see a savvy coach coaching his kids to create contact to get a cheap DP. I'm not sure there would be an easier way to get a runner out at 3B than a play like this. 

I like the "he's out until it's foul" philosophy. Perhaps that's the key?

That being said, I'm not saying I'm right. Just attempting to put some common sense into this. 

 

[Richvee]

I’m not buying into getting an out on R3.  

Assuming you call INT,  ( which I disagree with , but is debatable) the ball is dead the moment of the INT.  Therefore, there’s no way the interference by the BR ( or retired runner, whatever you want to call her) hindered a play on R3 because, the ball is dead and there is no play on another runner. 

So if INT is indeed called here, the ball is dead immediately the interference is on the BR for hindering R3’s ability to catch the pop up. Batter is out, ball is dead, fair foul is irrelevant and all runners return TOP. 

[Vegas_Ump]

When I was in Virginia, the umpire quizzes always contained this question:  Describe how you could have a triple play without the defense ever touching the ball!

The clue is to understand what things can happen and keep the ball in play, and those which don't--the ball is immediately dead.

One solution is started with the bases loaded.  B4 hits an IFF  (one out; ball still in play).  A runner passes another.  (two outs, ball still in play).  Another runner interferes with the fielder camping under the fly ball  (third out, and the ball is immediately dead on the INT.)

Yeah, not likely to happen, but it illustrates what can happen and your knowledge of the rules.  So you could have a double play on a declared IFF (that is determined to be a fair ball) and then a runner who interferes with a fielder making the play.  Definitely can happen.

Mike

Las Vegas

[grayhawk]

1 hour ago, Richvee said:

I’m not buying into getting an out on R3.  

Assuming you call INT,  ( which I disagree with , but is debatable) the ball is dead the moment of the INT.  Therefore, there’s no way the interference by the BR ( or retired runner, whatever you want to call her) hindered a play on R3 because, the ball is dead and there is no play on another runner. 

So if INT is indeed called here, the ball is dead immediately the interference is on the BR for hindering R3’s ability to catch the pop up. Batter is out, ball is dead, fair foul is irrelevant and all runners return TOP. 

I was going to post something similar.  I'm not getting two outs here.  Keep in mind that when a retired runner "interferes," he must actually hinder the defense from playing on another runner.  That did not happen here.  The batter-runner, who was out on the IFF, hindered the fielder (maybe) from catching the ball.  However, there was no other play to be made.  But let's say R3 was running on the crack of the bat and the defense might have been able to put her out on appeal for leaving early, then we could get another out here.  As is, only the BR is out and the play at home never happened.

[BigVic69]

Little league rules.

"In field fly, runner is out if fair" is what needed to have been said.
The runners only have to "tag up" if the ball is caught.

The batter-runner is out if the ball remains in fair territory, or is touched in fair territory by a defender. If it.is foul, thsn itnis foul.

I did not see interference as the 1st baseman was chasing the ball. However, If it was interference then the batter-runner is out anyway (IFF or not), BUT this time all runners return.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

[BigVic69]

The protected player must not be "interfered" with in making the play on the ball. Contact does not need to occur, simply making that player "move" to avoid a collision is enough.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

[The Man in Blue]

4 hours ago, Richvee said:

I’m not buying into getting an out on R3.  

Assuming you call INT,  ( which I disagree with , but is debatable) the ball is dead the moment of the INT.  Therefore, there’s no way the interference by the BR ( or retired runner, whatever you want to call her) hindered a play on R3 because, the ball is dead and there is no play on another runner. 

So if INT is indeed called here, the ball is dead immediately the interference is on the BR for hindering R3’s ability to catch the pop up. Batter is out, ball is dead, fair foul is irrelevant and all runners return TOP. 

With a retired runner committing interference, there does not need to be another play to be made.

 

SECTION 6 THE RUNNER IS OUT 

A runner is out when:

ART. 16 . . . Any coach or member of the offensive team, other than a runner, interferes with a defensive player’s opportunity to make a play. This includes, but is not limited to:

c. After being declared out or after scoring, a runner interferes with a defensive player's opportunity to make a play on another runner. A runner continuing to run and drawing a throw may be considered a form of interference. This does not apply to the batter-runner running on the dropped third strike rule.

PENALTY: (Art. 16) The ball is dead and the runner closest to home plate at the time of the interference shall be declared out. Each other runner must return to the last base touched at the time of the interference.

 

Even if you disagree with that (the language in (c) is misleading as it is NOT a full requirement when you read the entire Article), you could reasonably say that catching the fly ball was a play as catching it would have prevented R3 from scoring.  The interference with F3 resulted in her not making the catch and allowing R3 to score.

Let’s say the retired BR did not interfere with the catch, but instead interfered with a throw to second base in an effort to double up R2 ... R3 is out despite not having anything to do with the play.  It has nothing to do with where the play was; any retired runner interference with an opportunity to make a play results in the runner closest to home being called out.  

[grayhawk]

14 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

With a retired runner committing interference, there does not need to be another play to be made.

 

SECTION 6 THE RUNNER IS OUT 

A runner is out when:

ART. 16 . . . Any coach or member of the offensive team, other than a runner, interferes with a defensive player’s opportunity to make a play. This includes, but is not limited to:

c. After being declared out or after scoring, a runner interferes with a defensive player's opportunity to make a play on another runner. A runner continuing to run and drawing a throw may be considered a form of interference. This does not apply to the batter-runner running on the dropped third strike rule.

PENALTY: (Art. 16) The ball is dead and the runner closest to home plate at the time of the interference shall be declared out. Each other runner must return to the last base touched at the time of the interference.

 

Even if you disagree with that (the language in (c) is misleading as it is NOT a full requirement when you read the entire Article), you could reasonably say that catching the fly ball was a play as catching it would have prevented R3 from scoring.  The interference with F3 resulted in her not making the catch and allowing R3 to score.

Let’s say the retired BR did not interfere with the catch, but instead interfered with a throw to second base in an effort to double up R2 ... R3 is out despite not having anything to do with the play.  It has nothing to do with where the play was; any retired runner interference with an opportunity to make a play results in the runner closest to home being called out.  

1.  See the red part.  It's not retired runner interference if the defense didn't have a play on another runner.

2.  See the blue part.  R3 never scored.  When interference occurs, the ball is immediately dead (even though in this instance, we do not call time until after the fair/foul status of the ball is determined).  The "play" they made on R3 all happened when the ball was already dead, and that "play" would have never been attempted if the fielder not been prevented from making the catch because of the interference.

BTW, I am answering for baseball.  I have no clue on softball rules.

[The Man in Blue]

We’ll agree to disagree on the retired runner point.  My opinion (for what it is worth) is that you are pulling portions of the rule and not looking at the whole rule.  

On the interference point, I’m going to grant you that.  This is a sticking point I’ve seen come up in several conversations on here and on other forums.  It is a matter of semantics and almost seems as if we need to differentiate interference (an uncalled act) vs. Interference (capital “I”, meaning a call).

You are correct in that IF there is an Interference (capital “I”) call, then the ball is immediately dead.  If interference (an uncalled act) occurs, it could have been what caused the drop and run scored (since there was no call in this hypothetical).

[noumpere]

Some (lots) of this might be the difference between baseball and softball, and FED and OBR.

In FED and OBR baseball, I have no interference; even if it's called only get one out.

 

[The Man in Blue]

I think @noumpere just won the Internet for today ... 

A lesson for all of us in reading a rule, not just applying what you “know” ... I finally looked up the situation in the baseball book and it fully supports the position of @grayhawk and @Richvee in baseball.  However, the softball rule does not (posted above).

From 8-4-2(g):

If, in the judgment of the umpire, a runner including the batter-runner interferes in any way and prevents a double play anywhere, two shall be declared out (the runner who interfered and the other runner involved). If a retired runner interferes, and in the judgment of the umpire, another runner could have been put out, the umpire shall declare that runner out. If the umpire is uncertain who would have been played on, the runner closest to home shall be called out;

 

[johnnyg08]

There's some very good discussion in the comments section of the above YouTube video with some rule citations as well. 

 

[johnnyg08]

It's actually Rule 8-2-7 dealing with the batter-runner:

The batter-runner shall be called out when: ART. 7 . . . The batter-runner interferes with a fielder attempting to make an initial play, interferes with a fielder attempting to throw the ball, intentionally interferes with a thrown ball while out of the batter's box, makes contact with a fair batted ball before reaching first base, or (F.P.) interferes with a dropped third strike. If this interference, in the umpire's judgment, is an obvious attempt to prevent a double play, the runner closest to home plate shall be called out. A batter runner being hit with a thrown ball does not necessarily constitute interference.

Rule 2-30 Infield Fly: "Infield fly rule is, when declared by the umpire, a fair fly..." When the ball is airborne, it's neither fair nor foul.

Rule 5-1-1 The ball becomes dead immediately when: e. there is interference by a runner or a retired runner

Rule 7-4-12 In this play, the ONLY way they could get two outs would be if the interference by the BR prevented a possible double play, which it didn't.

[beerguy55]

19 hours ago, johnnyg08 said:

It's actually Rule 8-2-7 dealing with the batter-runner:

The batter-runner shall be called out when: ART. 7 . . . The batter-runner interferes with a fielder attempting to make an initial play, interferes with a fielder attempting to throw the ball, intentionally interferes with a thrown ball while out of the batter's box, makes contact with a fair batted ball before reaching first base, or (F.P.) interferes with a dropped third strike. If this interference, in the umpire's judgment, is an obvious attempt to prevent a double play, the runner closest to home plate shall be called out. A batter runner being hit with a thrown ball does not necessarily constitute interference.

Rule 2-30 Infield Fly: "Infield fly rule is, when declared by the umpire, a fair fly..." When the ball is airborne, it's neither fair nor foul.

Rule 5-1-1 The ball becomes dead immediately when: e. there is interference by a runner or a retired runner

Rule 7-4-12 In this play, the ONLY way they could get two outs would be if the interference by the BR prevented a possible double play, which it didn't.

So, this creates a no lose (or low risk) situation for the offense...B/R (who will be out if it's fair) could attempt to accidentally on purpose "hamper" F3 and there are really only two outcomes:

1. Interference is called and runners simply return to their bases - which would have happened anyway if the ball was caught

2. Interference is not called and runners advance  when the ball gets away from F3 (the low risk is a runner gets thrown out)

 

 

[johnnyg08]

1 minute ago, beerguy55 said:

So, this creates a no lose (or low risk) situation for the offense...B/R (who will be out if it's fair) could attempt to accidentally on purpose "hamper" F3 and there are really only two outcomes:

1. Interference is called and runners simply return to their bases - which would have happened anyway if the ball was caught

2. Interference is not called and runners advance  when the ball gets away from F3 (the low risk is a runner gets thrown out)

 

 

Sure. Those plays are all over. It doesn't necessarily mean that it's wrong 

"Accidentally" collide with F4 who is charging a double play ball. 1 out, runners return. 

[Rich Ives]

Still looking for the interference. Don't see it.

[BigVic69]

Leaving theory aside.
I see the 1st baseman keeping her eye on the ball and chasing after the path of the ball. I do not see her giving a rats-patoot concerning the batter-runner.
No interference.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

[BigVic69]

However, the batter-runner is out, due to the play.
The runner, at home, is safe.
Continue the game.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

[johnnyg08]

Fair enough, but we're not debating interference or not. We're working through proper enforcement of when is the exact moment the batter out on IFF?

That is the why we're here. 

[BigVic69]

In that case, the batter-runner is out IF the ball remains fair.

If the ball goes foul then it is foul and all runners and the batter return to original positions.

Right?

So the onky question is, was the ball judged to be fair or foul.

Right? Little league rules.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk