INT on a foul ball

[UmpTTS43]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Um ... based on your OWN WORDS, calling int would be wrong. If you protected F2 - then the collision between runner and F3 is obstruction, not interference. (PS - Mr. Rolleyes... routine or not has nothing to do with this - if you really think it does, please ask this at your next clinic. What matters is - which fielder does the UMPIRE think is going to make the play? That fielder is protected, and no one else.)

I don't know how you infer that. I would have protected F3 hence the INT.

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

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

A] not all INT results in an immediate dead ball B] you keep the ball live until the status is determined for the IFF. If you kill it right away you may deprive the defense from completing the IFF ie catch, touching it fair. If the ball is fair, you would have two outs, if the ball is foul, you have one out and batter back up to bat.

Same is true for type A OBS on the batter runner. If the ball is a fly ball or fair/foul status is in question you keep it live until the play is over.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by UmpTTS43

I don't know how you infer that. I would have protected F3 hence the INT.

My bad... I inferred that you meant F2 when you typed F2. Idiot.

A] not all INT results in a dead ball B] you keep the ball live until the status is determined for the IFF. If you kill it right away you may deprive the defense from completing the IFF ie catch, touching it fair. If the ball is fair, you would have two outs, if the ball is foul, you have one out and batter back up to bat.

Find a clinic. All I can say.

[MD Longhorn]

There seem to be a couple advocating protecting F3. I ask if you would have done so if the batter had run over F2 on this play. I also ask for some justification for protecting F3 given that the ball came within about an inch of actually being caught ... by F2.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

There seem to be a couple advocating protecting F3. I ask if you would have done so if the batter had run over F2 on this play. I also ask for some justification for protecting F3 given that the ball came within about an inch of actually being caught ... by F2.

The batted ball was more than halfway up the first base line. F2 is running to make what everyone should agree is a very difficult catch for F2 to make, and that's on a ball going away from him.

It doesn't matter that F2 came within an inch of catching the ball. That's not necessarily the criteria to decide who to protect. If R1 hadn't hindered F3, chances are pretty good that he not only would have been just as close to the ball as F2 ended up being, he would have had a much easier play.

And even if the batter had run over F2, that wouldn't have mattered if I had judged F3 was protected AND killed play the moment R1 hindered him.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Manny A

The batted ball was more than halfway up the first base line. F2 is running to make what everyone should agree is a very difficult catch for F2 to make, and that's on a ball going away from him.

It doesn't matter that F2 came within an inch of catching the ball. That's not necessarily the criteria to decide who to protect. If R1 hadn't hindered F3, chances are pretty good that he not only would have been just as close to the ball as F2 ended up being, he would have had a much easier play.

And even if the batter had run over F2, that wouldn't have mattered if I had judged F3 was protected AND killed play the moment R1 hindered him.

I should have been more specific... to those advocating F3 as the protected fielder here, had F3 not been bumped, would you have allowed BR to plow over F2 without a call?

[UmpTTS43]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

I should have been more specific... to those advocating F3 as the protected fielder here, had F3 not been bumped, would you have allowed BR to plow over F2 without a call?

This is how I would have ruled given the IFF situation and protecting F3. Let's throw the INT out the window for the sake of this arguement as to not muddy this sitch. OBS called on F2. Ball kept live until fair/foul status determined. If fair, batter out for IFF since the OBS had no bearing on the play. If foul, batter back up to bat, again since OBS had no bearing on the play and the type A OBS rule cannot be enforced on the BR when the ball is foul.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by UmpTTS43

This is how I would have ruled given the IFF situation and protecting F3. Let's throw the INT out the window for the sake of this arguement as to not muddy this sitch. OBS called on F2. Ball kept live until fair/foul status determined. If fair, batter out for IFF since the OBS had no bearing on the play. If foul, batter back up to bat, again since OBS had no bearing on the play and the type A OBS rule cannot be enforced on the BR when the ball is foul.

So how are you explaining the lack of protection of a fielder who in actuality missed making the catch by about 1 inch when the coach comes out?

(Incidentally and mildly related --- anyone notice that neither umpire called OBS on F1, who BR clearly had to slalom around during the somehow live foul ball?)

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

I should have been more specific... to those advocating F3 as the protected fielder here, had F3 not been bumped, would you have allowed BR to plow over F2 without a call?

Well, if F3 had not been bumped, he would have very likely called off F2 to make the catch. If the BR had plowed over F2, the obstruction wouldn't have mattered because he would have been out on the caught fly ball.

[HugoTafurst]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

There seem to be a couple advocating protecting F3. I ask if you would have done so if the batter had run over F2 on this play.
(snip).

You would have to determine the MLB ruling on which takes precedence, - although OBS on the BR before reaching first is an immediate dead ball, there are instances where the BR can still be out (such as a caught fly ball) - but that didn't happen here... so

Snip
I also ask for some justification for protecting F3 given that the ball came within about an inch of actually being caught ... by F2

Because as I see it, F3 would have caught the ball if R1 had not interfered

[HugoTafurst]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

My bad... I inferred that you meant F2 when you typed F2. Idiot.

Find a clinic. All I can say.

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...

[MD Longhorn]

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...

I called him that because he said,

"F2 is the last fielder protected. I believe the correct call was made."

And then when I told him that if F2 was the protected fielder then the correct call was NOT made, he said, "I don't know how you infer that."

Um ... I "inferred" that he was protecting F2 because he TYPED that he was protecting F2.

You, Hugo, are not an idiot for thinking F3 was the protected fielder. I disagree, but you're not an idiot.

[UmpTTS43]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

I called him that because he said,

"F2 is the last fielder protected. I believe the correct call was made."

Typically, but not always, F2 is the last fielder protected when multiple fielders are converging on a fly ball away from the plate area.

And then when I told him that if F2 was the protected fielder then the correct call was NOT made, he said, "I don't know how you infer that."

Um ... I "inferred" that he was protecting F2 because he TYPED that he was protecting F2.

I see nowhere where I TYPED that I was protecting F2. I did say that I thought the correct call was made, that call being INT on R1 on F3

[HugoTafurst]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

I
You, Hugo, are not an idiot
.

May I quote you to my ex-wives?

[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.

[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...