In the case of the OP, you don't need to make that judgement at all. At the instant of interference (in this case, described as an intentional, and an attempt to prevent a double play), you have two outs. The batter is not out on the IFF - he's out on the interference.

A possible scenario would be bases loaded, less than 2 outs. Fly ball down the 1B line just in front of 1B. R3 thinking 2 outs takes off on the batted ball, R1, seeing R3 as toast, positions himself in front of F3 and interferes with him catching the fly ball. I think even if the ball ends up foul you could call R1 and the BR out. 7.09(f) would be the cite. This would have no relevance to the IF ruling by MLB.

By the way, regarding interference with an IF, where the umpire does not have intentional interference to prevent a DP, MLB added this wording in 2013 to the comments in the IF definition in Rule 2.00:

"If interference is called during an Infield Fly, the ball remains alive until it is determined whether the ball is fair or foul. If fair, both the runner who interfered with the fielder and the batter are out. If foul, even if caught, the runner is out and the batter returns to bat."

How? A high pop (the call of IFF tells us the umpire rules it to be likely caught) and the runner (the one doing the interfering) is off the base - sounds like a very likely double play to me... in what way is your reading of the OP different?

If there wasn't interference, how would there have been a DP? (I mean, sure, there might have been, depending on the circumstances, but it's not obvious from the OP, and wouldn't be applicable on most instances involving an infield fly).

Only if the ball is about to be caught when the runner intentionally interferes to essentially prevent the fielder from catching the ball and immediately tagging that runner would I consider a possible double play here.

But if the ball is still high in the air when the runner hinders the fielder, what possible double play is the runner preventing? By the time the fielder makes the catch, the runner would have easily made it back to the bag. At least that's how I read the OP.

OK, I can see the assumption you made that I did not make, and it makes a difference. You seem to have assumed the bases are loaded. I did not make that assumption. I suppose if there's a runner on 3rd and they are the runner in the OP, it's not necessarily obvious that there's a double play in the cards.

I did not make that assumption. Hence the (obvious in this case) potential for a double play.

Ummmm, if a runner at third interferes with an IFF, then you do have the bases loaded, Mike... :D

Just kidding. I saw where the OP didn't mention it was a runner from third who interefed, only that the interference happened along the third base line. I suppose a runner who started at second could've been the one who interfered.

It would almost have to be a runner from 3B. The play took place between 3B and HP. With no runner on 3B, I could see where it was supposed to be a hit and run and the runner was moving on the pitch, and had already rounded 3B. If it was the runner from 2B, this is almost a certain double play since if the runner was already past 3B, F5 could easily double up the runner from 2B.

And that's what I was envisioning the whole time. Not necessarily a hit and run - but a runner from 2nd who (for any number of reasons) was near 3rd, realized what was about to happen, and intentionally interfered with the catch.

While that might seem a far-fetched assumption to those that automatically assumed the runner who interfered had started on 3rd --- I think it's equally far-fetched for a runner who had started on 3rd to intentionally interfere. Why would they do so intentionally?

Three years ago I was the BU when the almost same play happened to me.

1st & 2nd loaded, batter hit IF along 1st base line. Both batters tag as F1 and F3 start for the ball.

F3 yells "I got it". runner on 1st runs into F3 as F3 settles under the ball in the base path between 1st and 2nd.

I yell "Time, that's interference!". I ruled the runner out and the batter out. The offensive coach comes out to argue.

I said "coach, the runner off 1st is out for the interference and the batter is out because of a possible double play.:eek:

If the ball stayed fair couldn't you have ruled the batter out on the infield fly?

Nitpicking here, but it's the other way around. The violation causes the dead ball.

And sometimes not right away.

"If interference is called during an Infield Fly, the ball remains alive until it is determined whether the ball is fair or foul. If fair, both the runner who interfered with the fielder and the batter are out. If foul, even if caught, the runner is out and the batter returns to bat."