Interference on an infield fly

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by kylejt

Ah, but this situation begs an interesting question.

Nope. Doesn't.
Beg The Question // Get it right.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Nope. Doesn't.
Beg The Question // Get it right.

Too much time on your hands.

Peace

[kylejt]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Nope. Doesn't.
Beg The Question // Get it right.

Yikes! The OOO of the grammar department!

[Skarecrow]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Beg The Question // Get it right.

Interesting diet being advertised on the side of this link....HMMM.....

[JPaco54]

Explain why the second out on the IFF please? 1. IFF 2. Interference on R2? - The way I understand it, the interference did not disrupt the play, F6 caught the ball, would this not be a delayed dead ball situation...now if the interference caused him to drop it - would it then be interference as stated in a related post?

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by JPaco54

Explain why the second out on the IFF please? 1. IFF 2. Interference on R2? - The way I understand it, the interference did not disrupt the play, F6 caught the ball, would this not be a delayed dead ball situation...now if the interference caused him to drop it - would it then be interference as stated in a related post?

The play began with 1 out. Second out on IFF. Third out on INT.

Fielders have a right to an unimpeded attempt to field a batted ball. The runner bumped into him. Minimal judgment required to call that (some would say "automatic").

INT by a runner is an immediate dead ball in all cases. Only coach's, catcher's, and batter's INT are delayed dead.

[JJ]

Today an umpire acquaintance said of this play, "I'd call the interference and ignore the Infield Fly - there's no way you can get two outs on this."
I discovered there was no way I could convince him otherwise.

JJ

[yawetag]

Originally Posted by JJ

Today an umpire acquaintance said of this play, "I'd call the interference and ignore the Infield Fly - there's no way you can get two outs on this."
I discovered there was no way I could convince him otherwise.

JJ

What's his opinion on an IFF that hits a runner off a base?

[Rich]

Originally Posted by yawetag

What's his opinion on an IFF that hits a runner off a base?

That's different. That's merely interference by a runner during an.....wait a minute! It's exactly the same!

It took me about 10 seconds to realize that the inning was over. I called the interference and realized a second later we were dealing with an infield fly. The question I'd like to ask the acquaintance is why he would ignore the infield fly -- that batter is out, by rule, when that fair fly ball is hit.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by JJ

Today an umpire acquaintance said of this play, "I'd call the interference and ignore the Infield Fly - there's no way you can get two outs on this."

No provision of the rules permits ignoring an IFF. If you were going to ignore something here, it would be the INT, on the grounds that the defense wasn't really "hindered."

I don't accept that argument, but there's more room for reasonable people to disagree.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by mbyron

No provision of the rules permits ignoring an IFF. If you were going to ignore something here, it would be the INT, on the grounds that the defense wasn't really "hindered."

I don't accept that argument, but there's more room for reasonable people to disagree.

I don't even buy that one as being reasonable. The fielder almost went a$$ over teakettle due to the interference and made a last second lunging catch of the ball. It was just as likely he'd miss the catch and kick the ball away.

I'm certainly not waiting and then applying interference retroactively. Interference is an immediate dead ball. A collision with a protected fielder is almost certainly interference.

Besides, that wouldn't have changed anything. The offensive coach argued that because the fielder came from behind, "what's my guy supposed to do? That's not interference! He's in the baseline where he's supposed to be!" Sigh.