USA has the following guidance in its 4/2009 edition of its Plays and Clarifications:
Quote:
We have received a question about an act of interference by a runner after an infield fly has been declared. The following occurs:
1. An infield fly is declared on a fly ball which can be caught by an infielder, pitcher or catcher with ordinary effort when first and second or first, second, and third occupied and less than two outs.
2. The ball must be fair for the out to be recorded on an infield fly.
3. If an act of interference happens by a runner in fair territory the ball becomes fair and then declared dead due to the interference.
4. The batter would be out because of the infield fly and the runner would be out on interference.
|
The key is what is in red. It's the runner's position when she interferes that is the determining factor whether or not the IFF is enforced after being announced. So if the ball drops uncaught following the interference ruling, and it rolls into foul territory untouched, the IFF ruling still prevails.
What's not clear, even under USA's guidance, is what happens when the BR is the person who interferes. Is she already out by virtue of the IFF declaration, and then her interference is considered interference by a retired runner? That's what it seems the crew called in this game. Or is she still an active runner despite the IFF declaration, and her violation only calls for her to be out, with all other runners returning?
Unfortunately, you don't have any guidance under NFHS, so the ruling in this game is really without any authoritative interpretation.