INT on a foul ball

[Rich]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Egads ... two in the same thread. NO. Interference is a dead ball. The ball's status is DEAD.

He's right. It can't be an IFF if it's foul. If it lands and rolls foul, it's not an IFF.

I think in the end they got this exactly right. And I'd protect F3, too.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

MTD, Jr., and I watched this play together and keeping in mind that Junior is a former first baseman, we both agree that F3 is not the protected infielder and that F3 committed Obstruction against R1. That said, the replay was inconclusive as to whether the batted ball struck F2 before going into Foul Territory, and since the Umpires in the end ruled that the batted ball was inded a Foul Ball, then the game should have continued with the Batter returning to the Plate with a 1 and 2 count with runners on 1B and 2B with one out.

For the sake of argument (and keep in mind that Junior and I umpire baseball using NFHS Rules not NCAA and MLB): Lets say that the batted ball had touched F2 over Fair Territory before going into Foul Territory. The Batter is out because of IFF and now we have two outs. And F4, instead of throwing to F5, who then tags R2 out before he reaches 3B for the apparent third out of the inning, instead runs to 2B and tags (before R2 acquires 3B) R1 out while R1 is standing on 2B for the apparent third out of the inning. Remembering that F3 Obstructed R1's attempt to return to 1B. What do you have? Our RULING: R1 is out because he is not yet entitled to 2B because R2 had not acquired 3B at the time R1 was tagged out even though he is standing on 2B. BUT, F3's Obstruction is a Delayed Dead Ball and R1 is protected to 2B. After R1 is tagged out, the ball becomes Dead and Time is Called by the covering Umpire and the apparent third out of inning is recinded; R1 is awarded 2B and R2 is awarded 3B becuases he is forced to advance because of F3's Obstruction against R1. New Batter is At Bat with two out and Runners on 2B and 3B.

MTD, Sr.

[BSUmp16]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

MTD, Jr., and I watched this play together and keeping in mind that Junior is a former first baseman, we both agree that F3 is not the protected infielder and that F3 committed Obstruction against R1. That said, the replay was inconclusive as to whether the batted ball struck F2 before going into Foul Territory, and since the Umpires in the end ruled that the batted ball was inded a Foul Ball, then the game should have continued with the Batter returning to the Plate with a 1 and 2 count with runners on 1B and 2B with one out.

For the sake of argument (and keep in mind that Junior and I umpire baseball using NFHS Rules not NCAA and MLB): Lets say that the batted ball had touched F2 over Fair Territory before going into Foul Territory. The Batter is out because of IFF and now we have two outs. And F4, instead of throwing to F5, who then tags R2 out before he reaches 3B for the apparent third out of the inning, instead runs to 2B and tags (before R2 acquires 3B) R1 out while R1 is standing on 2B for the apparent third out of the inning. Remembering that F3 Obstructed R1's attempt to return to 1B. What do you have? Our RULING: R1 is out because he is not yet entitled to 2B because R2 had not acquired 3B at the time R1 was tagged out even though he is standing on 2B. BUT, F3's Obstruction is a Delayed Dead Ball and R1 is protected to 2B. After R1 is tagged out, the ball becomes Dead and Time is Called by the covering Umpire and the apparent third out of inning is recinded; R1 is awarded 2B and R2 is awarded 3B becuases he is forced to advance because of F3's Obstruction against R1. New Batter is At Bat with two out and Runners on 2B and 3B.

MTD, Sr.

Please consult the OBR index under: "Razor, Occam's"

[CT1]

Originally Posted by BSUmp16

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.

I disagree. F3's initial move was to stand still and point up toward the ball, so that F1 & F2 would know where it was. His movement toward the ball was very late.

No way I would have protected him.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by CT1

I disagree. F3's initial move was to stand still and point up toward the ball, so that F1 & F2 would know where it was.

Wow, which video are YOU watching? Or were you actually at the game? In the OP, look at the 5:04 mark of the video. It never shows F3 standing still and pointing up as you mention.

No F3 worth his salt is going to stand there and direct F2 to go to a ball that is more than halfway up the first base line. Well, maybe David Ortiz might...

[CT1]

Originally Posted by Manny A

Wow, which video are YOU watching? Or were you actually at the game? In the OP, look at the 5:04 mark of the video. It never shows F3 standing still and pointing up as you mention.

No F3 worth his salt is going to stand there and direct F2 to go to a ball that is more than halfway up the first base line. Well, maybe David Ortiz might...

Well, you're absolutely right -- it was R1 who pointed up. But Lee was very slow in breaking toward the ball, and by the time he got to where he could have made a play, F1 and F2 were already in position. I still wouldn't have protected F3.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by CT1

But Lee was very slow in breaking toward the ball, and by the time he got to where he could have made a play, F1 and F2 were already in position.

True. And, IMJ, the reason he was slow was because he initially saw R1 in his path, and then he bumped into him.

The ball was popped up down the first base line more than halfway to first. If there was no R1 anywhere in the vicinity, F3 is making that play 999 times out of 1000. The only reason F2 got to it and almost made the catch was because he didn't hear F3 call him off, which he most certainly would have if R1 didn't hinder F3.

Not to give players and managers too much credit, but the mere fact that Ethier and Mattingly didn't complain about the play's outcome spoke volumes, IMHO. Donnie Baseball was a first baseman for most of his career, so I'm sure he felt that Carlos Lee had the better shot at getting to the ball, and the interference call was justified.

[CT1]

Originally Posted by Manny A

True. And, IMJ, the reason he was slow was because he initially saw R1 in his path, and then he bumped into him.

The ball was popped up down the first base line more than halfway to first. If there was no R1 anywhere in the vicinity, F3 is making that play 999 times out of 1000. The only reason F2 got to it and almost made the catch was because he didn't hear F3 call him off, which he most certainly would have if R1 didn't hinder F3.

Not to give players and managers too much credit, but the mere fact that Ethier and Mattingly didn't complain about the play's outcome spoke volumes, IMHO. Donnie Baseball was a first baseman for most of his career, so I'm sure he felt that Carlos Lee had the better shot at getting to the ball, and the interference call was justified.

Good point. But don't forget -- Lee was playing behind Ethier. The ball was about 25 feet from first base, and Lee was 15-20 feet behind first. That's a long trot for a hefty fellow like Lee.

I used to think that because players and/or managers didn't complain, I got a call right. Lately, I think it's simply because they don't fully know the rules.