Infield Fly/Interference

[Kali]

If it didn't actually happen to me, I would have said this was one of those impossible test questions you see on the NFHS test every year.

Freshman High School game.  Bases loaded and no outs.  The batter pops the ball up near first base.  The 1st baseman comes in and stands in front of the base.  We call, "Infield fly, if fair".  The fielder takes a step back and then , just as the ball arrives, takes a second step back and collides with R1 standing on the base.  At the same time, the fielder reaches out his mitt inches into foul territory, the ball hits the glove and drops to the ground.

OK, so this is a foul ball and therefore, NOT an infield fly.  So I call "Interference" on R1 but (and I know this is wrong) I call the batter out.  It just seemed to me to be the right thing to do to negate the interference.  I know the proper thing would have been to call R1 out and put the batter back in the box but...

When we call out "Infield Fly", we are telling the runners that they will be safe if they stay on base.  Had the ball hit R1, it would have been dead and he would NOT have been out. If the ball ends up foul, we are reneging on this at the last second with too little time for the runners to know they aren't safe on base anymore.

So, maybe I'm just complaining that the rules aren't clear in this situation which is not a big deal but it got me thinking.  If that ball had been a few inches over and had been fair.  Would I have had two outs?  One for the infield fly and one for interference or does the runner have the right to stay on base in this case?  Or if he does jump off the base to let the fielder try to make the play, it seems he can be blocked from returning to the base by the fielder who now has the ball.

Additionally, while the MLB rule indicates that the runner would be safe off the bag once the ball "has gone through the infielder", the NFHS rules do not make that exception and if the the infielder mishandled the ball and it touched the runner, he would be out.

Anybody got opinions on this?

[Velho]

4 hours ago, Kali said:

Anybody got opinions on this?

Not sure the exact question. But some thoughts:

- You seem to have self assessed correctly (was wrong to call Batter out instead of R1). [Edit: This is only true if you ruled interference which must be intentional as explained below]

- Only extra protection a runner gets on INF is they are not out if a batted ball hits them.

- Yes. INT on a fair INF is 2 outs. MiLB manual cleans up any ambiguity in the rules (and I image some NFHS case plays do so as well)

[beerguy55]

1 hour ago, Kali said:

When we call out "Infield Fly", we are telling the runners that they will be safe if they stay on base. 

You are telling the runners no such thing...you are telling the runners that the batter is out (if fair) and they will not be forced to advance.   THAT is the sole purpose of the rule, and that is all you are telling anyone.

The runners still have obligations to avoid interfering with the fielder playing the batted ball.

They are safe if the batted ball hits them in fair territory, while on the base...only during an IFF.

And yes, if the ball was fair the batter is out on the IFF, and the runner is out for INT (there is still INT because there are still three other runners on base - the batter being out is irrelevant to the fielder's "right" to play the batted ball)

Sometimes SH*# happens.

[noumpere]

Infield fly or not, if a runner is on his base on a fly ball, he's protected from all but intentional interference (the specific wording might vary by code).

 

 

 

[Velho]

8 minutes ago, noumpere said:

Infield fly or not, if a runner is on his base on a fly ball, he's protected from all but intentional interference (the specific wording might vary by code).

 

Can you clarify? Are you saying that, with no INT, a pop fly that hits a runner standing on a base is not an out?

Are you thinking of (and accidentally expanding) the interference protection?

Rule 6.01(a) Penalty for Interference Comment: A runner who is adjudged to have hindered a fielder who is attempting to make a play on a batted ball is out whether it was intentional or not.

If, however, the runner has contact with a legally occupied base when he hinders the fielder, he shall not be called out unless, in the umpire’s judgment, such hindrance, whether it occurs on fair or foul territory, is intentional. 

[noumpere]

3 minutes ago, Velho said:

Can you clarify? Are you saying that, with no INT, a pop fly that hits a runner standing on a base is not an out?

Are you thinking of (and accidentally expanding) the interference protection?

Rule 6.01(a) Penalty for Interference Comment: A runner who is adjudged to have hindered a fielder who is attempting to make a play on a batted ball is out whether it was intentional or not.

If, however, the runner has contact with a legally occupied base when he hinders the fielder, he shall not be called out unless, in the umpire’s judgment, such hindrance, whether it occurs on fair or foul territory, is intentional. 

In the OP, F3 made contact with R1 who was on the base.  That's what is exactly covered by the last clause in the rule you cited.

Others went to being hit by a batted ball (didn't happen) or "have obligations to avoid interfering with the fielder playing the batted ball." (isn't true.

[Jimurray]

2 hours ago, Kali said:

 

Additionally, while the MLB rule indicates that the runner would be safe off the bag once the ball "has gone through the infielder", the NFHS rules do not make that exception and if the the infielder mishandled the ball and it touched the runner, he would be out.

Anybody got opinions on this?

A few misconceptions in this thread and I'll only address this one as @noumpere is taking care of the rest. The bag is protection for getting hit by an IFF and unintentionally hindering a fielder fielding a batted ball. When off the bag MLB protects the runner from INT with a batted ball if the ball went thru or by the fielder and no other fielder had a play on it. Thru or by means within reach of the fielder. A runner hit by a batted ball going in the gap past drawn in infielders would be out for INT. NFHS protects a runner behind a fielder if the batted ball passed that fielder and the umpire judges no other fielder had a play on the ball. A crutch has existed in NFHS called "string theory". If the runner is behind a string stretched between fielders there is no INT

 

[johnnyg08]

Interference by a runner who is standing on their base on an airborne batted ball must be intentional. 

Here's an example of a play..the crew unfortunately got this wrong, but it's a pretty good example to illustrate that intent is required. 

 

[Jimurray]

15 minutes ago, johnnyg08 said:

Interference by a runner who is standing on their base on an airborne batted ball must be intentional. 

Here's an example of a play..the crew unfortunately got this wrong, but it's a pretty good example to illustrate that intent is required. 

 

They kicked it. If you think they got the judgement of intent right they kicked old 7.08(b) where you call the runner and the batter out. If you think Onora didn't know the rule he's had a few kicks in his career and he kicked this one for lack of intent. I don't think FED calls two out but their wording allows some of our cohorts to require some effort to get out of the way of the fielder. I don't.

[johnnyg08]

1 minute ago, Jimurray said:

They kicked it. 

Yes, but that's not the relevant piece of this clip. The clip is excellent to use as an example of the type of play illustrated in the OP

[Jimurray]

13 minutes ago, johnnyg08 said:

Yes, but that's not the relevant piece of this clip. The clip is excellent to use as an example of the type of play illustrated in the OP

And some in FED would say they got it right other than implementing the penalty wrong.

[johnnyg08]

Here's another one...IFF example:
 

 

[beerguy55]

13 hours ago, Velho said:

Can you clarify? Are you saying that, with no INT, a pop fly that hits a runner standing on a base is not an out?

 

Contextual to the OP, which pertains to an IFF.

5.09 (b) (7) He is touched by a fair ball in fair territory before the ball has gone through, or by, an infielder and no other infielder has a chance to make a play on the ball. The ball Rule 5.09(b)(7) to 5.09(b)(9) 47 is dead and no runner may score, nor runners advance, except runners forced to advance. EXCEPTION: If a runner is touching his base when touched by an Infield Fly, he is not out, although the batter is out;

[beerguy55]

12 hours ago, Jimurray said:

They kicked it. If you think they got the judgement of intent right they kicked old 7.08(b) where you call the runner and the batter out. If you think Onora didn't know the rule he's had a few kicks in his career and he kicked this one for lack of intent. I don't think FED calls two out but their wording allows some of our cohorts to require some effort to get out of the way of the fielder. I don't.

Did he "kick" it...or was 6.01(a) clarified/updated in response to this play?

[BLWizzRanger]

The OP was for FED.  What is the FED reference here?  All I see is OBR (5.09) and I can't find the reference in the FED rule book.

edit:

Sorry guys, I am specifically referring to the comment:

"Interference by a runner who is standing on their base on an airborne batted ball must be intentional.  "

where is that in FED?

[Jimurray]

32 minutes ago, beerguy55 said:

Did he "kick" it...or was 6.01(a) clarified/updated in response to this play?

He kicked it. The same wording was in the old 7.08(b) comment. It should have been no INT but if he called it intentional 2 should have been out. O’Nora is not known as a rule guru. 

[834k3r]

1 hour ago, BLWizzRanger said:

The OP was for FED.  What is the FED reference here?  All I see is OBR (5.09) and I can't find the reference in the FED rule book.

edit:

Sorry guys, I am specifically referring to the comment:

"Interference by a runner who is standing on their base on an airborne batted ball must be intentional.  "

where is that in FED?

Closest I can come is in the Case Book, 8.4.2 Situation B (page 83). It mentions R3's interference but does not specify intentional or unintentional. Ruling in that situation is R3 is out, batter remains at bat due to the foul ball.

8.4.2 Situation B:  With R3 on third and R1 on first and a count of one-and-one, B3 hits a foul fly ball near the third-base line with one out. R3 interferes with F5 in F5's attempt to catch the ball. RULING:  The ball is dead immediately. R3 is declared out because of R3's interference with F5. B4 remains at bat with a count of one-and-two.

Using that case play for the OP, I'd have R1 out on INT and the batter returns to bat with a strike added to the count.

Edited March 28, 2024 by 834k3r
Added the Case Book wording for reference.

[Jimurray]

4 minutes ago, 834k3r said:

Closest I can come is in the Case Book, 8.4.2 Situation B (page 83). It mentions R3's interference but does not specify intentional or unintentional. Ruling in that situation is R3 is out, batter remains at bat due to the foul ball.

Using that case play for the OP, I'd have R1 out on INT and the batter returns to bat with a strike added to the count.

While that caseplay says R3 "on" third it might be a generic on as being R3. A "foul fly near the third base line" might not have R3 on the base. But FED is less precise than OBR with "a runner need not vacate his base to permit a fielder to catch a fly ball in the infield."

[834k3r]

1 minute ago, Jimurray said:

While that caseplay says R3 "on" third it might be a generic on as being R3. A "foul fly near the third base line" might not have R3 on the base. But FED is less precise than OBR with "a runner need not vacate his base to permit a fielder to catch a fly ball in the infield."

That's fair, but I was mainly trying to show FED doesn't seem to differentiate between intentional and unintentional INT for plays like these (Case Play and OP).

[Jimurray]

1 minute ago, 834k3r said:

That's fair, but I was mainly trying to show FED doesn't seem to differentiate between intentional and unintentional INT for plays like these (Case Play and OP).

You have to go back to a 1981 interp by Rumble as cited in the BRD. A runner touching his base cannot deliberately interfere. Without any cite in the rules Rumble says with less than 2 outs you call the runner and batter out. He must have been aware of the OBR rule. 

[Kali]

So what I have gathered from all this is that, since R1 didn't intentionally interfere with the 1st baseman (he intentionally stayed on base but wasn't trying to touch the fielder).  The correct call here should simply have been "Foul Ball" in an MLB game but R1 should have been called out in Fed. (6.01(a) comment in MLB and 8.4.2 situation B in Fed)

[Richvee]

1 hour ago, Kali said:

So what I have gathered from all this is that, since R1 didn't intentionally interfere with the 1st baseman (he intentionally stayed on base but wasn't trying to touch the fielder).  The correct call here should simply have been "Foul Ball" in an MLB game but R1 should have been called out in Fed. (6.01(a) comment in MLB and 8.4.2 situation B in Fed)

Foul ball on all codes. I don’t buy that  8.4.2 sit B infers R3 is “on” the bag.  If that’s what they wanted to address, it would say “R3 is in contact with third base”. 

[Velho]

2 hours ago, Richvee said:

Foul ball on all codes. I don’t buy that  8.4.2 sit B infers R3 is “on” the bag.  If that’s what they wanted to address, it would say “R3 is in contact with third base”. 

But where in FED is language equivalent OBR 6.01(a) Comment? I can't find it.

[Richvee]

47 minutes ago, Velho said:

But where in FED is language equivalent OBR 6.01(a) Comment? I can't find it.

Short of the interp in the BRD, there is none I’m aware of.