Interference on Infield Fly - it happened!

[grayhawk]

We talk about these kinds of plays all the time, but they so rarely happen. Here's one to end the game:

 

 

[Jimurray]

53 minutes ago, grayhawk said:

We talk about these kinds of plays all the time, but they so rarely happen. Here's one to end the game:

 

 

MLB will be right there, explaining how when the INT happened the ball was at that point, being fair without a doubt, dead and INT on a fair IFF is 2 out. They will also announce a rules clinic next year for any pro announcer before he gets a mike.

[noumpere]

I agree that *IF* this was INT, then two are out.

 

Not sure I agree it was INT.

[JSam21]

1 hour ago, noumpere said:

I agree that *IF* this was INT, then two are out.

 

Not sure I agree it was INT.

Did F6 need to alter their path to the ball in order to avoid R2? I think that is pretty obvious.

[maven]

12 minutes ago, JSam21 said:

Did F6 need to alter their path to the ball in order to avoid R2? I think that is pretty obvious.

That might be obvious, but it doesn't by itself justify INT. You're missing the key concept.

[JSam21]

13 minutes ago, maven said:

That might be obvious, but it doesn't by itself justify INT. You're missing the key concept.

And that being?

[Velho]

If you want a rule changed, call it as written.

[maven]

2 hours ago, JSam21 said:

And that being?

Hindrance, of course. 

And what counts as hindrance is so heavily context, level, and situation dependent that it's difficult to offer even rough generalities regarding it. Contact? Sometimes but not always hindrance. "Alter the path?" Sometimes but not always. Etc. 

In that White Sox game, the umpire (U3, it seems) judged that the fielder was hindered. That would not have been my call, but I'm no MLB umpire.

[Velho]

4 minutes ago, maven said:

In that White Sox game, the umpire (U3, it seems) judged that the fielder was hindered. That would not have been my call, but I'm no MLB umpire.

Does catch or no catch matter for you? Particularly if no catch and runners advance?

Also, do you have to grab INT at point in time or let it play out and grab after?

[834k3r]

2 hours ago, Velho said:

If you want a rule changed, call it as written.

Wait. Is this @MadMax's sock account?

🤣

[Jimurray]

39 minutes ago, maven said:

Hindrance, of course. 

And what counts as hindrance is so heavily context, level, and situation dependent that it's difficult to offer even rough generalities regarding it. Contact? Sometimes but not always hindrance. "Alter the path?" Sometimes but not always. Etc. 

In that White Sox game, the umpire (U3, it seems) judged that the fielder was hindered. That would not have been my call, but I'm no MLB umpire.

I vaguely recall an Evan's or Wendelstedt quote, not verbatim: "When contact occurs between a fielder and runner there will almost always be something to call."

"6.01(a)(10) He fails to avoid a fielder who is attempting to field a batted ball,"

[MadMax]

1 hour ago, 834k3r said:

Wait

I gave you the confused emoji, so as to give you this one: 🤨

When you summoned my attention over here, I thought for sure it was for your announcement that an Umpire Bingo Card got punched! 
But noooOOOooo. 😉 

1 hour ago, Velho said:

Also, do you have to grab INT at point in time or let it play out and grab after?

The Chicago Sports Radio* shows – plural – have been lamenting and explaining the Umpires’ calling of it all morning. The White Sox faithful – lamenting; Cubs faithful – explaining. 

You (as umpire) call it (INT) as soon as you see it occur. The various types of INT have, built into their vernacular, clauses as to who is out, or if it’s delayed dead versus instantly dead, etc. In the case of IFF (here), the IFF situation takes primary priority; thus, if the batted (pop fly) ball is Fair, it qualifies as an IFF, and the Batter would be Out. Then, any INT on the fielding of that pop fly, whether it be Fair or Foul brings an Out on its own, does it not? So the offending Runner is Out on the INT, and since that batted ball was (potentially, and was called) IFF from the moment it left the bat (and qualified as IFF), then the Batter/BR is Out as well. 

The only way I see this Out being one-and-the-same is if the BR interferes with, say, the F3 or F1 along the 1BL in an IFF situation, and pops it up, and the ball is mishandled and not caught in Fair territory. The BR was Out anyway (IFF-Fair and INT, but in this case, it is best practice to call “Time” because of the INT call, verbalize the call (of INT, and the reason for it), and freeze any further actions. 

Other U-E members… is there a precedent or Rule clause that brings an add’l Out (on say, R3) if BR commits INT in an IFF-Fair, Bases Loaded < 2 Outs situation? 

[grayhawk]

2 hours ago, maven said:

In that White Sox game, the umpire (U3, it seems) judged that the fielder was hindered. That would not have been my call, but I'm no MLB umpire.

I might not have made that call either, but MLB umpires tend to call even the slightest hindrances. We’ve all seen tiny adjustments that runners have made with obstruction called in MLB. They catch almost everything. 

[noumpere]

This blurb popped up today:

The White Sox discussed the infield fly and interference call that ended an 8-6 loss to the Baltimore Orioles with Major League Baseball and were told there is room for umpires to use judgment, general manager Chris Getz said.

 

 

Can someone who is better at searching confirm what MLB said?

[Velho]

1 hour ago, noumpere said:

Can someone who is better at searching confirm what MLB said?

Doesn't appear MLB made a statement. They talked to the White Sox (and leaked that to the press) and the White Sox confirmed MLB contacted them.

[Velho]

Ok, so for those in the "don't call that" camp, imagine F6 kicks it OOP while trying to catch that ball (which would advance the runners to home & 3B). Is that the outcome of the play?

[maven]

3 hours ago, Velho said:

Ok, so for those in the "don't call that" camp, imagine F6 kicks it OOP while trying to catch that ball (which would advance the runners to home & 3B). Is that the outcome of the play?

If the error is unrelated to the actions of the runner, then it is what it is.

Unlike OBS, INT is generally not connected to the outcome of the play—either the runner hindered the fielder or he didn't. We don't go back and change our judgment because the fielder subsequently erred.

[maven]

On 5/24/2024 at 12:21 PM, Jimurray said:

I vaguely recall an Evan's or Wendelstedt quote, not verbatim: "When contact occurs between a fielder and runner there will almost always be something to call."

That's true for a batted ball. My remark about contact was more general.

[SJA]

Quote: “I tell them your first responsibility is to the game of baseball, but that doesn’t necessarily mean the Commissioner’s office. The second is to your profession, but that doesn’t necessarily mean the union. And the third is to do in your heart what you know is honest, moral and correct. You do them in that order, and nothing that you’ll do is wrong, no matter how much they argue on the field.”

Joe West
 

[BigBlue4u]

Why is this getting beaten to death?  Read the rulebook.  Does this sound familiar?

Offensive interference is “an act by the team at bat which interferes with, obstructs, impedes, hinders or confuses any fielder attempting to make a play.” 

The shortstop made the play.

[The Man in Blue]

45 minutes ago, BigBlue4u said:

Why is this getting beaten to death?  Read the rulebook.  Does this sound familiar?

Offensive interference is “an act by the team at bat which interferes with, obstructs, impedes, hinders or confuses any fielder attempting to make a play.” 

The shortstop made the play.

Why does your last statement contradict the rest? 
 

The outcome doesn’t exist.  Once interference is judged to have happened, nothing afterwards happens.

Also, why do people think “hinder or impede” means the affected person fails in their duty?

[BigBlue4u]

FYI,

.Major League Baseball contacted the Chicago White Sox on Friday to notify the club that Thursday's game-ending interference call shouldn't have been made, sources told ESPN's Jesse Rogers.

[Jimurray]

2 hours ago, BigBlue4u said:

Why is this getting beaten to death?  Read the rulebook.  Does this sound familiar?

Offensive interference is “an act by the team at bat which interferes with, obstructs, impedes, hinders or confuses any fielder attempting to make a play.” 

The shortstop made the play.

The runner did this; "6.01(a)(10) He fails to avoid a fielder who is attempting to field a batted ball," which caused him to be out. If this was a foul fly the runner would be out "even if caught"

Definitions

Infield Fly

(Infield Fly Comment)..............

"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."

[SeeingEyeDog]

Lindsay at CCS has also posted another video where she outlines what Michael Hill from MLB specifically said about this call. This is absolutely absurd that they are doing Junior Valentine or any umpire like this. The call was correct as currently written. If you want to acknowledge it's a bad rule and re-write it...fine, please feel free. But you cannot take a dump on your umpire like this. Hell, as Lindsay references...even Vin Scully knows this rule! RIP, Vin...

~Dawg

 

 

[mrumpiresir]

On 5/24/2024 at 9:49 AM, Velho said:

Does catch or no catch matter for you? Particularly if no catch and runners advance?

Also, do you have to grab INT at point in time or let it play out and grab after?

You need to make a call when it happens, we don't wait to see the outcome and then decide.  If you see interference, call it.