Infield Fly

[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.

[nopachunts]

Originally Posted by Manny A

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.