The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Baseball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Tue Mar 18, 2014, 12:53pm
LRZ LRZ is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: SE PA
Posts: 768
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?
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Tue Mar 18, 2014, 01:45pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Tyler, Texas
Posts: 388
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.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Tue Mar 18, 2014, 02:18pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Katy, Texas
Posts: 8,033
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 was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'”

West Houston Mike
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Tue Mar 18, 2014, 02:24pm
LRZ LRZ is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: SE PA
Posts: 768
Quote:
Originally Posted by MD Longhorn View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Tue Mar 18, 2014, 02:51pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 769
Quote:
Originally Posted by LRZ View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Tue Mar 18, 2014, 03:07pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 769
Quote:
Originally Posted by LRZ View Post
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?
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Tue Mar 18, 2014, 03:16pm
Stirrer of the Pot
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Lowcountry, SC
Posts: 2,380
Quote:
Originally Posted by MD Longhorn View Post
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?
__________________
"Let's face it. Umpiring is not an easy or happy way to make a living. In the abuse they suffer, and the pay they get for it, you see an imbalance that can only be explained by their need to stay close to a game they can't resist." -- Bob Uecker
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Tue Mar 18, 2014, 03:23pm
LRZ LRZ is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: SE PA
Posts: 768
Quote:
Originally Posted by umpjim View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Tue Mar 18, 2014, 03:43pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,057
Send a message via Yahoo to UmpJM
Cool

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
__________________
Finally, be courteous, impartial and firm, and so compel respect from all.
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Tue Mar 18, 2014, 06:57pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Florida
Posts: 3
Quote:
Originally Posted by LRZ View Post
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
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Tue Mar 18, 2014, 07:24pm
LRZ LRZ is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: SE PA
Posts: 768
I did not realize that it was wrong to seek other opinions. But thank you for clarifying that.
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old Tue Mar 18, 2014, 11:59pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 769
Quote:
Originally Posted by LRZ View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old Wed Mar 19, 2014, 07:35am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 18,016
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manny A View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old Wed Mar 19, 2014, 07:49am
Stirrer of the Pot
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Lowcountry, SC
Posts: 2,380
Quote:
Originally Posted by bob jenkins View Post
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.
__________________
"Let's face it. Umpiring is not an easy or happy way to make a living. In the abuse they suffer, and the pay they get for it, you see an imbalance that can only be explained by their need to stay close to a game they can't resist." -- Bob Uecker
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old Wed Mar 19, 2014, 08:16am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 2,716
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.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Infield Fly? bas2456 Baseball 11 Tue Sep 28, 2010 02:21pm
Infield Fly to DBT cmcramer Baseball 22 Mon May 25, 2009 11:50pm
infield fly mccann Softball 4 Sun Apr 17, 2005 02:47am
Infield Fly sir_eldren Baseball 10 Tue Mar 30, 2004 10:47am
infield fly pollywolly60 Softball 16 Tue Jun 24, 2003 03:27pm


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:19pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1