INT on a foul ball
 

How do you like this?

<iframe src='http://mlb.mlb.com/shared/video/embed/embed.html?content_id=24245353&width=400&height=22 4&property=mlb' width='400' height='224' frameborder='0'>Your browser does not support iframes.</iframe>

Yet another complete crap call. Saw this last night. Some of these guys have lost all their skills, and would not move up in high school ball around here. I'm disgusted.

(And tbh... this was OBSTRUCTION if you think about it... at least until the ball dropped foul)

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

Peace

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?

I would have never ruled that F3 had an opportunity on this play. F1 & F2 are right there and one of them would be protected.

Obviously because it ended up being a routine catch. :rolleyes:

F2 is the last fielder protected. I believe the correct call was made. I would have ruled INT as well.

We also have an IFF situation. We have to keep it live until we know the status of the ball.

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.)

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

NOT if there is an interference call...
I don't have a problem with the interference on R1, after all this is a judgement call, BUT I still can't figure out why U1 stood there with his right arm up and his left arm pointing if he was ruling Interference...

UNLESS U1 was indicating Infield fly and OBSTRUCTION on F3 - in which case the ending result (R1 out, R2 returned to 2nd and Foul to batter) was wrong.

I'm thinking U! signaled what he thought happened, then during the discussion, they sorted it out and came to the conclusion that it WAS Interference on R1.

I still have no problem with the Interference (R1 interfered with F3).

R1 interfered almost immediately and in my opinion, F3 could (and should) have easily been there. The only reason F2 was there was because F3 couldn't get there.

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

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.

If we're chalking this up to judgement, I then submit this particular umpire has horrific judgement, as does the crew who got together to discuss it. Only 1 fielder can be protected - TWO different fielders had a better play on the ball, and one of those was going all out. F3 was kind of in the... "Should I go for the ball or stay back" mode and definitely was not the fielder with the better chance at the ball at ANY point during this play.

I agree with you on his signal - whatever that was. The signal and the fact that he didn't LOUDLY kill this play when he called INT tells me he was lost.

How the crew let this stand is nearly as bad.

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

Find a clinic. All I can say.

I dunno, ozzy. F2 definitely had the harder play (and the fact that he didn't make it confirms that) caused by the fact that F3 couldn't get to the ball. I stopped the video the moment F3 contacted R1, and at that moment, all three fielders were about equidistant from the point where the ball fell. So I don't think it's a stretch to say that F3 would have called F2 (and F1, for that matter) off to make the catch had R1 not hindered him.

This was definitely a dumb move by R1. He's lollygagging back to first base while holding his arm up in the air. Interference should have been called right then and there, IMHO.

I'm not so sure U1 made that call right away. It was only after the crew got together to discuss it did they make that determination.

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.

He made the int call immediately (not seen in this video, but seen on others) - on this particular video, however, at about 12-13 seconds you can see he's already got a fist in the air before the ball is thrown to first.

In the other video, you can see him put his arm in the air at the point where they collide (looks more like and IFF signal to me) and he points several times at the runner, long before the ball came down.

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.

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...

Really? And a clinic would teach me what? I know the rules concerning situations such as these and how to apply them. This is one of those plays that happen very rarely and makes it such that there are exceptions to the literal rule where there are and have been official interpretations concerning these situations.

U1 called INT and signaled IFF. Fair/foul status was yet to be determined on the batted ball. IFF is only in effect on a fair ball.

Similar sitch. R3. Pop up near 3rd base. R3 interfers with F5 attempting catch. You make the INT call but keep the ball live until final status of the ball is determined. If the ball is fair, R3 out, BR awarded first. If ball is foul, R3 out, batter returns to bat.

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?

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.

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


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

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.

It's clear you won't believe me - that's why I suggested asking at a clinic ... or ask someone you think should know. There's so much wrong with the rest of this post I don't even know where to begin.

Two things though, regarding your similar sitch. 1) If the ball rolled foul, would you allow F5 to pick up the ball, throw it to another base, and make a play on another runner? I ask that because that's what happened in the OP, and you seem to be indicating they did nothing wrong.
2) It's interesting that in your sitch, with a fair ball you have 1 out; with a foul ball you also have 1 out. yet on the OP you had 2. How is that again?

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

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

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?)

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.

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.

By the fielder missing the catch, it actually makes my case for protecting another fielder easier. If F2 would have made the catch, it would have been a harder sell protecting another fielder when F2 completed the play. I have had to make a call such as this before. INT on a protected fielder where another fielder was close to making the catch. Umpire judgement. That's what we get paid for. We get paid to make the nonroutine calls.

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.

[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).

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?

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.

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.

May I quote you to my ex-wives?
:D

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

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

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.

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

Anything that might happen after the catch or no catch.

Rita

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

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" :cool:

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.

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... :D

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.

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.