Infield Fly

[LRZ]

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?

[nopachunts]

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.

[MD Longhorn]

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.

[LRZ]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

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.

[umpjim]

Originally Posted by LRZ

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.

[umpjim]

Originally Posted by LRZ

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?

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

[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?

[LRZ]

Originally Posted by umpjim

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

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.

[UmpJM]

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

[flaump22]

Originally Posted by LRZ

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?

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

[LRZ]

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

[umpjim]

Originally Posted by LRZ

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.

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.

[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.