Infield Fly

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

It did not roll foul. Nothing that happened after the interference actually happened - the play was dead at the moment of the interference.

So, how do you determine the disposition of the batted ball the moment of the interference, if the ball is still in flight and is very near the line? Do you make a judgment call that it was fair or foul?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Manny A

So, how do you determine the disposition of the batted ball the moment of the interference, if the ball is still in flight and is very near the line? Do you make a judgment call that it was fair or foul?

You wait and see what the final disposition is. If the ball becomes fair, then the batter is also out. If the ball becomes foul, then it's just like any foul ball.

And, I think all codes agree on this play.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

You wait and see what the final disposition is. If the ball becomes fair, then the batter is also out. If the ball becomes foul, then it's just like any foul ball.

And, I think all codes agree on this play.

That's what I thought, Bob. But Mike's view of the situation is that nothing happens after the interference, so you don't take into consideration that the ball eventually rolled foul.

What I believe gets disregarded after the interference is any potential play the fielder makes. For example, if the fielder was able to recover from the hindrance and makes the catch, the catch itself is ignored. But we still use where he touches the ball to determine if the Infield Fly call is upheld.

[jicecone]

Fair or Foul, the runner is out for interference of a catch. Now, to actually justify intentional interference to prevent a DP in this situation is stretching the imagination. Anything is possible but, the likelihood of a double play here just doesn't seem logical.

[umpjim]

Originally Posted by jicecone

Fair or Foul, the runner is out for interference of a catch. Now, to actually justify intentional interference to prevent a DP in this situation is stretching the imagination. Anything is possible but, the likelihood of a double play here just doesn't seem logical.

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.

[umpjim]

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."

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Manny A

So, how do you determine the disposition of the batted ball the moment of the interference, if the ball is still in flight and is very near the line? Do you make a judgment call that it was fair or foul?

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.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

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.

Disagree.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Disagree.

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?

[bob jenkins]

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).

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

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?

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.

[MD Longhorn]

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.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

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.

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

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.