|
Tue Jul 01, 2003, 10:33am
|
|||
|
|||
|
OBR. R1 and R2 with no outs. B3 hits routine pop-up to F3. However, R1 unintentionally interfers with F3 and precludes his ability to get to the ball with ordinary effort. Ball lands in fair territory, then is finally touched in foul territory. What do we have? Would the result change if the ball WAS touched in fair territory? Does the IFF rule come into play, or does the interference kill the ball immediately and superceded the IFF rule? Very strange one. The call made after the BU and PU conferred was B3 out and R1 back to 1B. I know this was wrong since R1 has to be out and play is dead immediately upon the call of interference. So question is, should B3 be out as well.
Leo 
|
|
Tue Jul 01, 2003, 11:13am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
Tue Jul 01, 2003, 11:24am
|
|||
|
|||
|
OBR 7.08b, commentary
"A runner who is adjudged to have hindered a fielder who is attempting to make a play on a batted ball is out whether it was intentional or not." " If, the umpire declares the hindrance intentional, the following penalty shall apply: With less than two out, the umpire shall declare both the runner and batter out. With two out, the umpire shall declare the batter out" This is also covered under 7.09g "Interference by a runner". Did anyone ask the officials why they made the ruling they did? Mabey they didn't see the interference and in that case the batter would be out. Why the runner was returned? Interference would take precedence over the IFF. However it seems like the two rules were mixed together and the outcome was what you ended up with. The above seems to imply that if the interference was non-intentional, then R1 would be out and B1 on first.
|
|
Tue Jul 01, 2003, 11:46am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
The IFF rule stands eventough R3 choose to leave the base.... shame on R3!
__________________
When in doubt, bang 'em out! Ozzy
|
|
Tue Jul 01, 2003, 12:55pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Thanks all for your responses...however, you missed the statement that the ball landed in fair territory (untouched) and settled in foul territory (foul ball). Also, the interference was clearly unintentional.
As I understand what I have read in your collective responses, R1 would be out (that's the easy part), but if the IFF turned out to be foul, then what? B3 can't be out on the IFF rule since it was a foul ball. If the IFF turned out to be touched in fair territory, but not caught because of the interference, would R1 be out and B3 to 1B. Doesn't the interference make the ball dead immediately and the IFF rule moot? Leo
|
|
Tue Jul 01, 2003, 01:04pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
While, by rule, the batter wouldn't be out if the ball was foul, if I thought the interference prevented the ball from being fair, I'd still have the batter out. If the ball landed foul, then I'd just have R1 out.
|
|
Tue Jul 01, 2003, 01:34pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Here is the perspective of the umpire who actually made the call.
I was the 1B umpire. The ball was fould. It landed in foul territory just between the 1st base coaches box and 1st Base. The runner interfered with the 1st baseman while trying to make the catch. He had a play. I ruled interference and called the batter out. In hindsight, I should have called the runner out. Here was my logic at the time. Everytime that I had seen an interference on a foul ball the batter had been called out. However all those intereferences were caused by: batters, a base coach, dugout personnel or fans. I'd never seen a case where the runner causes interference on a foul ball. Also, everytime I've seend an interferenc by the runner, we've placed the batter on 1B. But that didn't seem logical since it was a foul ball. I conferred with my partner and he agreed with the batter being out, so we went with it. Nobody protested, so we moved on. So, had we called the proper call (runner out) what would we have done with B3? Add a strike and keep him at bat, or put him on 1B. I say add the strike and keep him at the plate. It has made for some great discussion over the past few days. One thing that is for sure, I will always know how to handle this situation now. As far as the IFF rule goes, obviously in this case it does not apply. But if the ball was ruled fair, I would have called a double-play. B3 out on Infield Fly Rule and R1 out was interfering with a field attempting to field a batted ball. Scott "It takes experience to avoid mistakes, it takes mistakes to gain experience."
__________________
The best way to "make up" for a bad call is to get the next one right!
|
|
Tue Jul 01, 2003, 01:45pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Double Play??
Scott,
I disagree that two outs should have been called in this case. The rules only support the runner being out and the batter, or other runner, if the interferences was willful and intentional to prevent a double play. In this case, there was no intent to interfer. Whether the ball was fair or foul, my inclination would be (in hindsight) to have R1 out for interference. If the ball is fair but uncaught, kill the play and place B3 on 1B. If the ball is foul, place B3 back in the box with one more strike. If the ball is caught fair or fould, despite the interference, then I would have two outs. Leo
|
|
Tue Jul 01, 2003, 02:00pm
|
|||
|
|||
Leo
This is a great discussion.  On the actual play, there would have only been 1 out since the Infield Fly rule does not apply on foul balls. In the what if scenario of the ball being fair, I think that the batter is out on the infield fly rule regardless if the ball is caught or not. That is its own rule. Now the R1 I would call out due to his interfering with field attempting to make a play on a batted ball. (7.09 L?) Scott
__________________
The best way to "make up" for a bad call is to get the next one right!
|
|
Tue Jul 01, 2003, 02:09pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
"however, you missed the statement that the ball landed in fair territory (untouched) and settled in foul territory (foul ball). Also, the interference was clearly unintentional."
I didn't miss your information, you just didn't supply the whole story, before 1B or after 1B. Also according to the official at 1B, the ball was never fair and therefore IFF had nothing to do with this. Glad to help anyway.
|
|
Tue Jul 01, 2003, 04:05pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Different play, diferent ruling -- R1 is out, other runners return, it's still a "foul ball" on the batter -- an additional strike unless he alrady had two. I've never seen R1 interfere with F3 on a foul ball. The play comes up periodically with R3 interfering with F5 -- a little more realistic, I would have thought, but you saw it.
|
|
Tue Jul 01, 2003, 07:16pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
They had while ago a similar play posted in MLB site:
You Make The Call: Collision at First By Tom Lepperd MLB Director, Umpire Administration In our most recent rules question, Travis Lee attempts to catch a pop up but is bumped by the runner on first base, who is attempting to return to the bag. Lee makes the catch despite the contact, and the question is whether such contact results in a violation of the Official Rules. You Make the Call 56k | 300k Travis Lee tries to catch a pop-up and bumps into the baserunner. The rules say the runner is out for interference and the batter is awarded first base. Previously: Ball lodges in beer up. Get the ruling >> The options were: A. No violation. The play stands because the ball was caught. B. The runner is out for interference and the batter is awarded first base. C. Runner and batter-runner are both out (runner for interference and batter because ball was caught). D. Runner is awarded second base on obstruction. When a runner makes contact with a fielder attempting to make a play on a batted ball, interference has been committed. It does not matter if the contact is accidental or if the fielder is able to complete the play. Once a runner commits interference, the ball is dead and the runner is declared out. If, in the judgment of the umpire, the runner's interference is willful and deliberate to prevent a double play (which this was not), the umpire would declare both the runner and batter-runner out. Our rules experts have fared better in previous questions. The most common answer submitted was C, which is incorrect because when interference is called, the ball is dead immediately and all further action is ignored by the umpire. The correct answer to this question was B: The runner is declared out. All other runner(s) would return to the base last occupied at the time of interference, and the batter-runner is actually awarded first base (even though the ball was caught). Here are some answers from fans who nailed this one correctly: The correct answer is "B," citing rule 7.08(b). The runner must avoid a fielder attempting to field a batted ball. If the umpire felt that such action was intended to break up a double play, both the runner and batter-runner could be called out. In this particular play the actions of the runner were not to intentionally attempt to break up a double play. -- Eric Lambert Very good answer, Eric! I actually had this happen in a college game I called last year. The runner is out under 7.09(L) and the fielder caught a dead ball. The batter is awarded first base on the play. The correct answer is B. The net result is the same as in A, other than the batter remains at first, rather than the runner. -- Tim Stevens Rule 7.08(b) seems to apply. The fielder makes contact with a runner who is off the bag and attempting to return to the base. It is the runner's responsibility to avoid the fielder who is attempting to make a play on a batted ball. Regardless if the contact was intentional or not, the runner can be called out. This would be a judgment call for the umpire to decide if the runner "hindered" the fielder. I believe the proper response would be "B." The runner is out and the batter is awarded first base. -- L.G. Robbins Correct, L.G., except that professional umpires are instructed that contact of this type is considered "hindering," and therefore interference. I think it's B. The runner is out for interference and the batter is awarded first base. According to Rule 7.08 (b), "A runner who is adjudged to have hindered a fielder who is attempting to make a play on a batted ball is out whether it was intentional or not." The ball is dead at the moment of interference, and the batter-runner is awarded first base (provided the interference was not intentional, and I think it was obviously not). [according PBUC Umpire Manual 4.24 example 5] -- P. Geronne, Germany I believe that the rule involved here is 7.09(L). The key parts are: "It is interference by a batter or a runner when ... He fails to avoid a fielder who is attempting to field a batted ball ... PENALTY FOR INTERFERENCE: The runner is out and the ball is dead." Using that rule, the appropriate ruling would be to declare the ball dead, call the runner out, and award the batter-runner first base. -- Richard Palmieri Good answer! Jump to Official Club Site MLB.com Anaheim Arizona Atlanta Baltimore Boston Chi Cubs Chi White Sox Cincinnati Cleveland Colorado Detroit Florida Houston Kansas City Los Angeles Milwaukee Minnesota Montreal NY Mets NY Yankees Oakland Philadelphia Pittsburgh San Diego San Francisco Seattle St. Louis Tampa Bay Texas Toronto MLBP AlumniSearch Entire Site News Shop Team Ballpark Baseball Basics Official MLB Info for Advanced Search Check E-mail Sign up/Log in Help/Contact Us
|
|
Wed Jul 02, 2003, 07:04am
|
|||
|
|||
|
What ever happened to Delayed Dead Ball?
It is a Delayed Dead Ball on an Obstruction play, 7.06 (b), why not on Interference? IMO, it seems to be a disadvantage to the defense under such a rule. Example: Same situation, but after the interference, the 1st baseman dives and catches the foul ball while his foot is touching the base to get R1 at first on a force play. By rule, the runner is out and B1 gets to bat again? Or, the ball lands fair (which in this case is an IFF) and is not an infield fly, the 1st baseman picks the ball up and touches runner and 1st base, double play. Under rule, only the runner is out and B1 gets 1st? WOW!
__________________
"A picture is worth a thousand words".
|
 |
| Bookmarks |
|
|
Linear Mode
