Infield Fly
 

Looking to broaden a discussion on another forum.

OBR. Infield fly along the 3d base line, umpire calls IF if fair. Runner intentionally interferes with F5, ball drops in fair territory and rolls foul. Runner is out for interference, but what about the batter? Does he return to the box with a strike added to the count? Or is he out on the IF as a consequence of the interference that prevented the defense from touching/catching the ball in fair territory?

If in the judgement of the umpire, F5 would have caught the infield fly minus the interference of the runner, you would have two outs. The batter on the IF, and the runner on interference. You would have a hard time convincing me that the fielder would not have made the catch.

If it helps you puzzle this out, and you're worried about the fact that the ball rolled foul...

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

I'm feeling vindicated. In the other forum, I am a lone voice for calling both the batter out on the IF and the runner out on the interference. Everyone else says, without any reservation, that the rules are absolutely clear: the runner is out for interference, foul ball, BR returns to the box.

This was debated a while back in this thread on the other forum: Interference on infield fly rule - Ask the Umpire - Umpire-Empire

Here's what MLB said:
"Posted 01 September 2012 - 09:08 AM

MLB sent out this clarification on this play to all evaluators:

MLB sent us clarification of the play you asked me about last week. I've copied and pasted MLB's email to us...

In the bottom of the 7th inning with runners on 1st and 2nd and 1 out, the batter hit a pop-up near first base and, as the first baseman was moving to field the ball, the runner on first interfered. Meanwhile, the ball fell untouched and rolled into foul territory before first base; however, the infield fly rule had been declared.

The crew correctly ruled the runner from first out for interference and returned the batter-runner back to bat counting the foul ball. On this play, the batted ball initially landed over fair territory but was untouched as it rolled foul and stopped over foul territory before first base. Since the ball was foul, the batter-runner cannot be awarded first base or, as in this case, declared out by the infield fly rule. Also, the batter already had two strikes and as with any foul ball with two strikes, the previous count applies.

Note, if the batted ball had been ruled fair on this play, the runner who interfered would be declared out as well as the batter-runner for the declared infield fly. If the infield fly had not been declared, the runner who interfered would be declared out and the batter-runner awarded first base unless, in the umpire’s judgment, the interference was intentional with the obvious intent to break up a double play. In that case, both the runner who interfered and the batter-runner would be declared out."

The BRD agrees with this.

You are vindicated by those who are not aware of the ruling.

By the way, by "broaden the discussion" did you mean add the "intentionally" part which was not in the OP on the other thread?

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?

Yes. Does it matter? Under 7.08(b), intent is irrelevant to interference. So, whether intentionally or not, interference with a fielder attempting to make a play is interference.

nopachunts & MD Longhorn,

It's a foul ball.

Since it's a foul ball, it cannot be an IFF & the batter cannot be out on an IFF.

LRZ,

The only way you can get 2 outs on this play when the ball proves itself to be foul is if the umpire judges the runner intentionally interfered for the purpose of breaking up a double play.

JM

You just didn't like the answer that was given on the other site so you hoped someone over here would also have the incorrect ruling, that way you would think you were right.

Well congratulations, you heard what you wanted to hear. Still wrong

I did not realize that it was wrong to seek other opinions. But thank you for clarifying that.

Does it matter? I don't know. You say you added it to broaden the discussion. UmpJM has adressed the possible ramifications of intentional interference to prevent a DP. The discussion has broadened.

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.

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.

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."