INT on a foul ball

[UmpTTS43]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

It was not my intent to put words in your mouth ... in fact I said "seem to be" indicating that I was not positive that was what you were saying. I've seen more angles than the OP (which means Original Post) shows, and it's clear they did not kill the play at all until MUCH later. The only real indication of this on the OP is U3 calling the out near 3rd base on the tag. It's obvious that no umpire emphatically killed this play as they should have. (It should have been killed at the point of Interference... but failing that, it should have been killed when the ball was touched foul - surely you can agree with AT LEAST that).

Yes, I will give you that in an ideal world. There was so much going on during this play with different judgements by different umpires concerning different aspects of the play that I see nothing wrong with letting it play out. You can always go back and make things right. Once you kill a play, it is difficult to correct things. Sometimes when crazy happens, you have to let crazy play out.

Sigh. I'll make this simple. Move the OP away from the foul line. Who is out on the IFF? Batter. Exactly what play, then, did the runner interfere with?

In most cases, the ball is live during an IFF where the batter is out. Since the ball is live, you can have a base runner interfere a fielder while making a play on the live ball. The INT call is based on a fielder making a play on a live ball versus whether any particular runner is out or not. If R2 was off on the pitch, the INT committed by R1 on F3 could have possibly prevented a secondary play on R2 even though BR was out on the IFF.

In short, just because BR is out for IFF does not mean that the INT call is off of the table.

[HugoTafurst]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

I
You, Hugo, are not an idiot
.

May I quote you to my ex-wives?

[zm1283]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Obviously you cannot say that. These are the best guys in the world right? LOL!!!

Peace

Weren't you one of the guys who lambasted me a couple of years ago when I dared question football officials and their judgment?

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

... but failing that, it should have been killed when the ball was touched foul - surely you can agree with AT LEAST that).

I must admit after having seen the video replay a few times, I had trouble telling for sure whether or not the ball grazed F2's shin guard after he muffed it. So I can understand why there may have been confusion and the lack of a call regarding that.

In fact, I don't even know who of the four umpires could have seen it and convince the crew chief during the conference that the ball was indeed foul. The PU had to have been shielded by F2, and no way U1 has the angle to see it. If anyone, it was probably U2, and he's not making that call the moment it happens.

You gotta admit, this play was unreal in that it had (or potentially had):
- An IFF call
- Interference by R1 on F3
- Obstruction by F1 or F2 on the BR
- A tough fair/foul call
- Two runners on the same base
- No umpire vehemently making the INT call
- No umpire calling Foul
- An umpire ruling a runner out on a tag near third that ended up being nullified
- Ozzie staying in the game

[zm1283]

I'm in the camp that you don't protect F3 here, so I would have had OBS on F3 if the ball had not been foul. I think they got it wrong calling R1 for INT, but that is judgment on which fielder to protect, so it wasn't a huge deal.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by UmpTTS43

In short, just because BR is out for IFF does not mean that the INT call is off of the table.

Agree generally. Disagree specifically. In THIS play, 2 outs was not an option.

[Rita C]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Sigh. I'll make this simple. Move the OP away from the foul line. Who is out on the IFF? Batter. Exactly what play, then, did the runner interfere with?

Anything that might happen after the catch or no catch.

Rita

[UmpTTS43]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Agree generally. Disagree specifically. In THIS play, 2 outs was not an option.

If it's not an option in this play, then it shouldn't be an option in this example.

R1R2 0 outs. Pop fly to F6. IFF called. R2 interferes with F6 in his attempt to field the fly while R2 is attempting to return to 2nd base. Ball drops uncaught.

Tell me what you have and where do you place runners?

[umpjim]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Agree generally. Disagree specifically. In THIS play, 2 outs was not an option.

I posted this elsewhere also:

This is what the 2010 WUM says: "The umpire should immediately call "time." He will then callout the runner who interfered and award the Batter-runner first base or return him to bat depending on whether the ball becomes a fair or foul ball on the intereference."

That covers the OP if the ball was foul.

If the ball was fair the WUM has two reference plays that then have the batter out on the IFF and the runner out onthe INT.

BRD also has the Batter and runner out in this situation and seems to reference a PBUC ruling on this.

You can get two outs here if the ball is fair.

[umpjim]

Originally Posted by HugoTafurst

Mike, I may still be an idiot, but I have no problem with F3 being judged to be making the play - but we are certainly on the same page regarding the ball not being in play as soon as the INT call is made - and the fact that U1's mechanic didn't make sense with the end result of the play...

That mechanic might make sense if Childress' quote from the PBUC staff is corrrect in the BRD: If a runner interfers with a fielder attempting to catch a declared "infield fly if fair," the umpire will not stop play until the status of the ball is determined.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by zm1283

Weren't you one of the guys who lambasted me a couple of years ago when I dared question football officials and their judgment?

My position has been consistent for years. I have never really been in love with MLB umpires from the days that 300 pound guys were the norm as umpires. And when guys cannot get very basic plays right and it does not seem that video review takes place at that level, I have issues with that when basic college or HS umpires would not make these kinds of errors. NFL officials are much better with fewer umpires and even with replay and do not have many of their plays overturned. If I recall my position with that football discussion is not atypical of other discussions when it comes to football, you did not know the rule that you were ranting about. Most of the time people complain about football officiating do not realize what the rule was. And I do not think I was alone in getting on you about your position. I am a big boy, if I am wrong about this then say so. But do not try to distort my position because you were ripped apart by many on the football site about your lack of knowledge. BTW, I think the replacement officials have been rather bad too in many cases and I know a few of them personally. Now what?

Peace

[DG]

From what I see:

Not an IFF

INT call is weak, INT is dead ball so second out should not happen

2nd out, which should have the first, except the INT call, which Off team could legit argue was after dead ball.

[HugoTafurst]

Originally Posted by umpjim

That mechanic might make sense if Childress' quote from the PBUC staff is corrrect in the BRD: If a runner interfers with a fielder attempting to catch a declared "infield fly if fair," the umpire will not stop play until the status of the ball is determined.

Yes, I realized that after reading UMPTTS43's post following mine.

Now looking at it, then I think we still should have the play killed at the moment fair foul is determined.
Which may be what happened just that what kills the play is the ball being touched in foul territory. Possibly time was called,. but inertia had the fielder throw the ball and the players over there on the left side of the infield did not hear that the play was killed...

[BSUmp16]

Originally Posted by mbyron

I suppose you could make a case for protecting F3, but it's a weak case. F2 had a better play on the ball.

Here's one of several errors made by the crew: if U1 calls R1 out for INT, why is he allowing play to develop? Why are we throwing the ball across the diamond? Isn't it DEAD on INT?

First, play has to develop to see if ball goes fair or foul, because THAT decision will effect how you enforce the INT. And you can call/holler/demonstrate/signal a runner out all day and some infielder is still going to play it out - as they've been taught. That's not the umpiring crew's fault.

Second, No Way does F2 have a better play. Without the INT, that's F3's play all the way. F3 is coming in for a routine catch using normal effort (which is why U1 initially signals for the IFF); whereas F2 has to either come out far enough to then turn around or make the catch over his shoulder. Protecting F3 is the correct decision; thus no OBS.

Once the ball settles foul, you enforce the INT - R1 out; B/R returns to bat with an extra strike added to the count.

[umpjim]

Originally Posted by HugoTafurst

Yes, I realized that after reading UMPTTS43's post following mine.

Now looking at it, then I think we still should have the play killed at the moment fair foul is determined.
Which may be what happened just that what kills the play is the ball being touched in foul territory. Possibly time was called,. but inertia had the fielder throw the ball and the players over there on the left side of the infield did not hear that the play was killed...

Yes, who knows when they killed the ball, but you can always unwind a late dead ball but if you kill it early you will have a problem. U1 signaled IFF and INT but did not kill anything. I don't know if he remembered the obscure PBUC ( and possibly the MLBUM) ruling in this case. But he got it right. He did not stop play.
And, as long as you protect F3, they got this call right. I hear the sound of pages turning.