Thread: Infield Fly
View Single Post
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Tue Mar 18, 2014, 02:51pm
umpjim umpjim is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 769
Quote:
Originally Posted by LRZ View Post
I'm feeling vindicated. In the other forum, I am a lone voice for calling both the batter out on the IF and the runner out on the interference. Everyone else says, without any reservation, that the rules are absolutely clear: the runner is out for interference, foul ball, BR returns to the box.
This was debated a while back in this thread on the other forum: Interference on infield fly rule - Ask the Umpire - Umpire-Empire

Here's what MLB said:
"Posted 01 September 2012 - 09:08 AM

MLB sent out this clarification on this play to all evaluators:

MLB sent us clarification of the play you asked me about last week. I've copied and pasted MLB's email to us...

In the bottom of the 7th inning with runners on 1st and 2nd and 1 out, the batter hit a pop-up near first base and, as the first baseman was moving to field the ball, the runner on first interfered. Meanwhile, the ball fell untouched and rolled into foul territory before first base; however, the infield fly rule had been declared.

The crew correctly ruled the runner from first out for interference and returned the batter-runner back to bat counting the foul ball. On this play, the batted ball initially landed over fair territory but was untouched as it rolled foul and stopped over foul territory before first base. Since the ball was foul, the batter-runner cannot be awarded first base or, as in this case, declared out by the infield fly rule. Also, the batter already had two strikes and as with any foul ball with two strikes, the previous count applies.

Note, if the batted ball had been ruled fair on this play, the runner who interfered would be declared out as well as the batter-runner for the declared infield fly. If the infield fly had not been declared, the runner who interfered would be declared out and the batter-runner awarded first base unless, in the umpire’s judgment, the interference was intentional with the obvious intent to break up a double play. In that case, both the runner who interfered and the batter-runner would be declared out."

The BRD agrees with this.

You are vindicated by those who are not aware of the ruling.
Reply With Quote