Infield Fly with Interference
 

R1 is on 2nd, R2 is on 1st. 1 out.
Batter hits a routine fly ball to f6. There is contact between f6 and r1. Both recovered before the ball reached the apex and then f6 dropped the ball. When action stops the bases are loaded. THEN PU announces "dead ball, batter is out infield fly" and returns both runners to TOP with 2 outs.

I believe inning should be over. R1 out for INT and BR out for IFF

If there is no interference, the advance is legal correct?

What say yall?

If the umpire ruled interference, then yes, both the runner are out and the batter on the infield fly. If the umpire did not rule interference then the advance of the runners would be legal.

Looks right.

Devil's Advocate:

What came first, the INT or the IF? Remember, if INT, the ball is dead and any subsequent anything never happened. IOW, did the INT and dead ball occur prior to the umpire being able to determine it was an IF?

Ooh this could be a bit of a sticky wicket. Double devil's advocate, just to pile on: When does a IFF "occur", by rule? :)

I have always said it is at the instant the ball is batted because the rule says the batter is out when "she hits an infield fly". It does not say when the umpire recognizes or decides or announces.

The quote is from NFHS, because the ASA book does not say the batter is out unless the bated infield fly hits the batter.

I guess we are going to quibble about B vs. BR, but it doesn't matter.

That is sort of my point. If the INT occurred a step or two off the base (leaving with the pitch) prior to the umpire being able to determine if an infielder, pitcher or catcher had a routine play on the ball, is it still in IF? :cool:

In your scenario, it might be too early to determine that INT took place. Chances are the ball wasn't even batted when the runner ran into the fielder a step or two off the base. How would you determine that F6, in this case, is a protected fielder if the ball hasn't been popped in the air? Heck, it's possible you have obstruction here.

Isn't this the sequence in the OP?
"Batter hits a routine fly ball to f6. There is contact between f6 and r1. "

For the OP, that says the ball is headed for F6, then R1 contacts F6.

Here's what I think:

Speaking USA rules - It doesn't matter whether it's been declared an IFF or not. 8.7.j.1: The runner is out when a runner interferes with a fielder attempting to field a batted fair ball or foul fly ball. [1-3 Effect F] If the interference prevents the fielder from catching a routine fly ball (fair or foul) with ordinary effort, the batter is also out.

• The runner in OP made contact with a fielder trying to catch a batted ball.
• The ball in OP was fair when touched by the fielder.
• The fielder was unable to catch the ball with ordinary effort after being contacted, as evidenced by the drop.
• This contact impeded or hindered the fielder from executing a play, and is by definition interference (Rule 1).
• If judged routine fair ball by umpire, BR is out. (Which is also the IFF criteria)

My strict constructionist interpretation of the interference rule makes me think that it does not matter if the IFF has been declared or not. There is no element of timing at play here. Of course, if declared, the batter is out no matter what. And before someone says it....YES...I know the ball is dead as soon as we call INT, so the drop might "never happen". We must still judge the batted ball itself as routine or non-routine.

Speaking Fed - I want to get two outs here, but I can't find rule support for calling the batter out unless the IFF has already been declared (Rule 2-30). Case play 8.6.4.C covers this scenario. Again, reading the book closely, I don't think I can call the BR out unless IFF is judged (and in high school is can be "judged" all the way until the next pitch, 8-2-9 Note). Anyone with a rule cite or case play to say we always get the BR here no matter the timing of the Int call vs the IFF?

Speaking NCAA - The ball is dead at the moment of INT. The umpire judges the ball to be over fair or foul territory at that time. If fair, batter out. If foul, foul ball on batter. Yuck. At least we don't have to worry about the timing here.

Some good thoughts by others. Here's my $.02.

In USA/ASA, it's moot if fair or foul, or IFF vs any routinely caught ball, declared IFF or not, or even when determined (wait and see the exceptions). As long as you judge 1) that was the one fielder that you protect as fielding the batted ball, the runner is out, and as long as you judge 2) it was a routine play on a ball in flight, fair or foul, the batter is also out. The exceptions re: timing would be something like the runner leaving so early as to be called out for leaving early (dead ball out and no pitch, so no batted ball), or so early as to make contact with obstructing F3 while the pitch is still in flight (obstructed runner cannot be put out between those two bases, and the obstruction preceded any interference in that instance).

In NFHS (not repeating the same exceptions, but same), timing is also moot; umpire can judge IFF after the fact, whether declared or not, and no reason not to include during the dead ball that occurs in the interim. So, the issues are 1) is that the fielder you are protecting, and 2) is it an IFF (must be fair in flight at the time of the interference)? NFHS does not include the 2nd out if a foul ball, so R1 is out, and a strike assessed to the batter, in that case.

NCAA result, although wording differently, is the same as NFHS (although the exceptions may differ due to the options available when leaving early). Although the IFF must be declared to be applied, the exception for interference allows for a "potential" IFF to be judged. So batter is also out if fair, batter assessed a strike if foul.