INT on a foul ball

[MD Longhorn]

[QUOTE=UmpTTS43;852654]Concerning 1) Quit putting words in my mouth. I never said that they did nothing wrong. They did the right thing by keeping the ball live until the fair/foul status was determined. I do not know when the ball was actually killed. TV went straight to the play on R2 so we don't know if someone was killing the ball.[quote]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).

2) In my OP I had R3. Maybe I should have said "R3 only" so you would have understood the sitch more clearly. You are correct, in my OP I have 1 out on a fair ball. From the original sitch, I would have 2 outs on a fair ball. 1 for the INT, 1 for the IFF.

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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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