Interpretations of 8-4-2k

[Kali]

My association has a big discussion on this every year because of a question on our State High School Baseball Test and it comes down to how to interpret the sub-sections of 8-4-2k (1) and (2).  The story goes like this:  8-4-2k covers the responsibility that a runner has to avoid a batted ball.  That responsibility is removed once the defense has touched the ball.  Subsections (1) and (2) speak to how the rule changes when the batted ball is declared an infield fly.  The infield fly rule exists to prevent the defense from getting a cheap double play by commiting an error. 

Under 8-4-2k(1) we are told that the players may hold on base, even if the infield fly touches them, even if there is a defensive player behind them that could have made a play on the ball.  Instead of being called out, the player is safe and the ball is dead.  This is all consistent with the idea behind the infield fly rule where we are saying that the runners may stay on their bases and are not forced off them.  Under 8-4-2k(2) we find that the rule doesn't alter for players who wander off base.  It remains the same penalty as in the main body of 8-4-2k.

However, my state association takes this one step farther.  They claim that under the conditions of 8-4-2k(1) and 8-4-2k(2) that the defense touching the baseball no longer removes the jeopardy of the runner.  That the ball is still an infield fly and that the ball deflected into the runner carries the same penalty as a ball untouched.

Consider the following situation:

Bases Loaded with no outs.  A high pop-up is hit that will land a few feet in front of 3rd base.  When the 3rd baseman camps under the ball an infield fly is called by the umpires.  But the 3rd baseman looses the ball in the sun and it hits him in the chest in fair territory and begins rolling toward the area behind home plate.  R3 sees his chance and breaks for home.  The catcher runs up to intercept the ball which he reaches just as R3 is passing several feet to his right.  The catcher swipes at the ball with his glove knocking it into the R3's feet.

Under my state's interpretation, this scenario would result in R3 being declared out for being touched by an infield fly while off base.

To my mind, this violates the intent of the infield fly rule because it ends up giving a cheap double play to the defense.  It also violates one of the basic tenets of baseball by allowing the defense to get an out by simply directing a baseball toward an offensive player.

[wolfe_man]

IFF is called regardless of if the baseball is caught or not and the ball remains live.  The runner(s) may then advance at their own risk. If the ball is pushed or thrown towards them by a defensive player and then makes contact, then the runner is not out - that is nothing. 

In your example, the ball was not caught, so the runners do not need to tag up and may advance at their own risk.  If the ball is bumped, kicked, thrown, etc towards any runner and accidental contact is made AFTER being batted and passes or is touched by a fielder, then that is nothing and they may continue advancing.

Once a batted ball touches a defensive player, then the runner cannot be put out by the baseball making accidental contact with the runner.   If this was the case, why tag someone when you could just kick the ball at them or bean them a la wiffle-ball? 

I'm not sure what state you're in, but I think they've confused something somewhere as they're making an easy call confusing. In IFF, a runner is only out if touched by a live batted ball that has not passed by the first defensive fielder (or made contact with one). They would also be out if tagged while being off-base by a defender with the ball securely held in either their hand or glove. Although the ball remains live in IFF, the runner is okay to proceed and is not put out by simply making accidental contact with a thrown or kicked ball by a defender. 

Now, if they intentionally kick or make contact with a live ball, then that is another story entirely (interference versus IFF ruling). 

[Catch18]

They claim that under the conditions of 8-4-2k(1) and 8-4-2k(2) that the defense touching the baseball no longer removes the jeopardy of the runner.  That the ball is still an infield fly and that the ball deflected into the runner carries the same penalty as a ball untouched.

Wow. Ok. I don’t envy an umpire trying to explain to a pissed off offensive coach that logic.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Senor Azul]

It’s possible your association has completely misinterpreted the following online case play—

2019 NFHS Baseball Rules Interpretations

SITUATION 20: With the bases loaded and the runner on third base breaking for home, the batter swings at a pitch, hitting it high in the air between the pitching mound and home plate. As the plate umpire declares “Infield fly if fair,” the ball lands on the ground and rolls back toward home. As the runner from third is sliding to the plate, the ball contacts him in fair ground. RULING: The ball is immediately declared dead. The batter is out for the infield fly and the runner is out as well. (2-19, 5-1-1-f1, 8-4-2-k2)

In this play the runner is out because the infield fly has not been touched by a fielder—only the ground—so it is still considered an infield fly. So when the batted ball contacted the runner in fair territory it was interference because it has denied the defense an opportunity to field the batted ball. Rule 8-4-2k tells us that after any infielder touches a batted ball (that would include a declared infield fly), interference shall not be called if the ball hits a runner, even if another fielder has a play on the ball. The only exception would be if the runner committed an intentional act, i.e., he deliberately allowed himself to be hit by the batted ball.

The two sub-paragraphs to the rule do not in any way negate the rule which tells us the declared infield fly is no longer an infield fly once it touches an infielder; but it can then become a deflected batted ball.

8-4 ART. 2 . . . Any runner is out when he:

k. is contacted by a fair batted ball before it touches an infielder, or after it passes any infielder, except the pitcher, and the umpire is convinced that another infielder has a play (5-1-1f, 6-1-5).

[ousafe]

@Kali I was mystified by that discussion as well, but didn't speak up like you did.  I hope you take it up with Fitz off-line and we can get the ill-considered ruling overturned!

[Thunderheads]

The OP:  That association interpretation is wrong. period.  That's weird

[The Man in Blue]

An infield fly affords no special privilege or penalty specifically to the runners ... it calls the batter out and removes the force.   Therefore, despite the specific mention of it in the book, whether it is an infield fly or not has no bearing on the runner contacting the ball.

Maybe I am wrong on this, but I would also say a ball rolling on the ground is no longer an infield fly.  Once the batter is called out, the infield fly no longer exists.

 

[Kevin_K]

13 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

An infield fly affords no special privilege or penalty specifically to the runners

 

It affords the runner the opportunity to stay on their respective base and be hit with the batted ball and not be called out

[Velho]

3 minutes ago, Kevin_K said:

It affords the runner the opportunity to stay on their respective base and be hit with the batted ball and not be called out

👍

... and doesn't remove runner obligation to not interfere with the fielder trying to field the pop-up. I can see the  conversation with the OC now on that one. 😳