infield fly/runners interference

justbaseball · #1 (**permalink**) Sun Jul 24, 2005, 01:02am

Saw this play at a 12-year old baseball game playing under MLB rules (PONY Baseball).

Bases loaded, 1 out. Batter hits popup to infield, infield fly is called by plate umpire (batter declared out), ball lands on ground behind pitcher. Runner on 2nd hesitates before trying to proceed to 3B and inadvertantly has contact (minor) with SS trying to get to popup. Runner on 2nd is declared out by field umpire for interference.

Result: Batter out, runner at 2B out, inning over.

Correct call?

bluezebra · #2 (**permalink**) Sun Jul 24, 2005, 01:29am

Quote:

Originally posted by justbaseball
Saw this play at a 12-year old baseball game playing under MLB rules (PONY Baseball).

Bases loaded, 1 out. Batter hits popup to infield, infield fly is called by plate umpire (batter declared out), ball lands on ground behind pitcher. Runner on 2nd hesitates before trying to proceed to 3B and inadvertantly has contact (minor) with SS trying to get to popup. Runner on 2nd is declared out by field umpire for interference.

Result: Batter out, runner at 2B out, inning over.

Correct call?

Not enough info. Where was the contact? What was the sequence? You say the ball dropped, then you say R2 ran into F6 who was trying to make the catch. Which was it? If the ball was closer to the pitcher, it's not F6's play.

Bob

justbaseball · #3 (**permalink**) Sun Jul 24, 2005, 01:35am

Ball was closer to the pitcher (my opinion). SS was at normal depth (i.e. near OF grass). Contact was in base line between 2nd and 3rd. Ball dropped on grass behind pitcher on SS side...maybe halfway to inside of dirt cutout.

Plate umpire called INF Fly when ball went into air, field umpire called interference on runner as SS made attempt at ball.

To be totally honest, I thought the INF Fly call was a bad call which is probably what froze the runner...not a very catchable ball as it was just a bloop over pitchers head...but I'd like to ask the question as if the popup was catchable since the catchability of the ball is in reality my opinion.

This call did not ulitmately affect the outcome of the game...but at the time it very well could have.

Illini_Ref · #4 (**permalink**) Sun Jul 24, 2005, 06:10am

I may be way off here, but I understood the sitch as this. The ball had dropped, becoming a ground ball. The SS was attempting to field the grounder and as he moved in the runner contacted him. If this is the case I say good call by the BU.

justbaseball · #5 (**permalink**) Sun Jul 24, 2005, 10:23am

Could be that you're right? Not sure. It took the umpires about 5 minutes of discussion before issuing a ruling.

DG · #6 (**permalink**) Sun Jul 24, 2005, 10:49am

It's not a ground ball if umpire ruled infield fly. Sounds like a bad call to get 2 outs in this sitch. If it was a catchable fly, and not called infield fly (ie not ordinary effort to catch), then the runner is out and batter gets 1B. What was the pitcher doing?

justbaseball · #7 (**permalink**) Sun Jul 24, 2005, 10:57am

This was one of those little bloop ?hits? just over the pitchers head landing behind him...not very high, but out of his reach and not enough time for the pitcher to get back there.

Personally, I thought that the INF Fly call was bad as I didn't think anyone could catch the ball...add that to the fact that none of us ever heard the plate umpire call INF Fly (probably causing the confusion for the runner)...we only learned he called it AFTER the fact...but again, I'm really more interested in whether the resulting calls were correct if you assume the ball was catchable. I don't think I have a clear answer to that yet. I've read the rule book and can't really figure it out. Probably need to go to the case books, but I don't have any (just a fan).

DG · #8 (**permalink**) Sun Jul 24, 2005, 11:14am

Quote:

Originally posted by justbaseball
I'm really more interested in whether the resulting calls were correct if you assume the ball was catchable. I don't think I have a clear answer to that yet.

If it was a catchable fly ball by the SS (but not an infield fly), then it would be interference, runner is out, batter gets 1b. Since it was high enough for it to "possibly" be an infield fly, then it was not a rapidly approaching ground ball the fielder was positioning himself to catch, so no interference in that case.

BigUmp56 · #9 (**permalink**) Sun Jul 24, 2005, 12:15pm

justbaseball,

You mentioned in your post at 2:35 a.m. that the PU called the IFF when the ball went into the air.

In your 11:57 a.m. post, you appear to back up off of that statement when you say that you never heard the PU call the IFF, and didn't realize that he did until after the fact.

Please explain.

It really should not matter if the PU forgets to call the IFF as long as he realizes his error and enforces it accordingly, I'm just curious as to what really occured.

Either way, the fielder (F6) has the right to field the batted ball unhindered by the runner, and if in the umpires judgement he was hindered, they made the correct call on the runners interference.

Tim.

justbaseball · #10 (**permalink**) Sun Jul 24, 2005, 12:25pm

I never heard IFF called, nor did anyone around me. I was told AFTER the fact by the tournament director that the plate umpire called it right away, so I have to assume thats true.

I believe that the runner never heard it either and it is one reason he was hung out on the baseline and ultimately interfered. BTW, I do agree that he interfered.

I had an umpire on another site say that in MLB rules, there cannot be a double play on an interference call and therefore he believed that the IFF call would be negated by the interference call and the batter would go to 1st, the runner on 1st to 2nd, the runner at 2nd declared out and the runner on 3rd returned to 3B. 2 outs now with no advantage gained.

Seemed like one of those plays that only kids can generate.

bob jenkins · #11 (**permalink**) Sun Jul 24, 2005, 04:24pm

Quote:

Originally posted by justbaseball
I had an umpire on another site say that in MLB rules, there cannot be a double play on an interference call

That "other" umpire is wrong, imo. While a DP on an interference call usuually requires "willful intent to break up an obvious DP" (or whatever the specific words are, in the play at hand the batter is out on the infield fly and teh runner is out on the interference.

justbaseball · #12 (**permalink**) Sun Jul 24, 2005, 07:03pm

Talked to a pretty high level umpire today and asked about it and he said the same thing as the other umpire...unless intentional interference, no double play.

Bottom line is this, he said. Infield fly causes batter to be out and you therefore cannot interfere with trying to get the same guy out a 2nd time (there was no other play other than on the batter...the runners were frozen and not attempting to advance). If on the other hand intentional, then you would be interfering with the intent of advancing your runner at 3rd for example.

He also said that since the ball was not in the vicinity of the baseline, that there should not be interference anyways.

Kind of interesting to hear all the different opinions...not sure I feel any closer to the answer.

dudeinblue · #13 (**permalink**) Sun Jul 24, 2005, 10:59pm

Now I'm just confused.

largeone59 · #14 (**permalink**) Mon Jul 25, 2005, 12:33am

Quote:

Originally posted by justbaseball
Talked to a pretty high level umpire today and asked about it and he said the same thing as the other umpire...unless intentional interference, no double play.

Bottom line is this, he said. Infield fly causes batter to be out and you therefore cannot interfere with trying to get the same guy out a 2nd time (there was no other play other than on the batter...the runners were frozen and not attempting to advance). If on the other hand intentional, then you would be interfering with the intent of advancing your runner at 3rd for example.

He also said that since the ball was not in the vicinity of the baseline, that there should not be interference anyways.

Kind of interesting to hear all the different opinions...not sure I feel any closer to the answer.

I'd have to disagree with your "high level" umpires.

First: Interference can take place anywhere. It doesn't have to be just in the baseline. He's also not interfering with "getting the guy out a second time," but rather interfering with F6 fielding a batted ball.

Second: I do believe this is a double play when there is interference on an infield fly. Let's say that there is a popup to F6 and infield fly is called. R2 obviously (unintentionally) interferes with F6 catching the ball. The ball squirts away and R3 scores. Those "high level" umpires would let that play stand with no interference call??

That is my humble opinion.

To sum up: batter out on IFF. R2 out for interfering with F6 fielding a batted ball. Rule 7.09(L)

justbaseball · #15 (**permalink**) Mon Jul 25, 2005, 12:52am

Its been interesting. Have probably asked 10 umpires and gotten 10 different rulings and/or reasons for the call they would have made. And I probably shouldn't have used the language "high level" umpires. Just some local HS and college umpires who are well regarded in our area.

I think I buy your reason though...combined with the exception in 7.08(f).

I DO think that these umpires got themselves into trouble with the initial IFF call as it was not a catchable ball as far as I could tell. Once he made it, I guess he had to live with it.

Thanks everyone.

[Edited by justbaseball on Jul 25th, 2005 at 02:04 AM]