You make the call: INT by BR on a potential IFF

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by teebob21

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TIYXqFonTZ8

Question 1: When is a BR retired on an IFF? (I assert that it is at the ball's peak, when the IFF should be called)
Question 2: Does INT on a subsequent play by a fielder supercede an out via IFF on the BR?

IMO: They got this right, albeit sloppily. I will happily be proven wrong.

To start, WTF is an IFF?

IMO, there was no INT, F3 simply misplayed the ball while the retired player did exactly what she was supposed to do

[robbie]

Given a judgement of interference, they got the call right.
However, bad judgement........

[Tru_in_Blu]

Originally Posted by robbie

Given a judgement of interference, they got the call right.
However, bad judgement........

Ever play racquetball? Might also apply to squash or handball.

If your opponent gets in your way while you are trying to return a serve or volley, you may declare a "hinder".

In my judgment, BR hindered F3 and I have INT and BR out.

[Manny A]

USA has the following guidance in its 4/2009 edition of its Plays and Clarifications:

We have received a question about an act of interference by a runner after an infield fly has been declared. The following occurs:

1. An infield fly is declared on a fly ball which can be caught by an infielder, pitcher or catcher with ordinary effort when first and second or first, second, and third occupied and less than two outs.
2. The ball must be fair for the out to be recorded on an infield fly.
3. If an act of interference happens by a runner in fair territory the ball becomes fair and then declared dead due to the interference.
4. The batter would be out because of the infield fly and the runner would be out on interference.

The key is what is in red. It's the runner's position when she interferes that is the determining factor whether or not the IFF is enforced after being announced. So if the ball drops uncaught following the interference ruling, and it rolls into foul territory untouched, the IFF ruling still prevails.

What's not clear, even under USA's guidance, is what happens when the BR is the person who interferes. Is she already out by virtue of the IFF declaration, and then her interference is considered interference by a retired runner? That's what it seems the crew called in this game. Or is she still an active runner despite the IFF declaration, and her violation only calls for her to be out, with all other runners returning?

Unfortunately, you don't have any guidance under NFHS, so the ruling in this game is really without any authoritative interpretation.

[teebob21]

Originally Posted by Manny A

What's not clear, even under USA's guidance, is what happens when the BR is the person who interferes. Is she already out by virtue of the IFF declaration, and then her interference is considered interference by a retired runner? That's what it seems the crew called in this game. Or is she still an active runner despite the IFF declaration, and her violation only calls for her to be out, with all other runners returning?

Unfortunately, you don't have any guidance under NFHS, so the ruling in this game is really without any authoritative interpretation.

So after sleeping on this, and going to the book...I'm now not sure. I thought this was the right call (for the reasons and rules below), but as others have pointed out: can we get 2 outs for INT by a BR retired by an infield fly whose status is as yet undetermined????

Relevant cites: NFHS 8-2-9: The batter is out when "She hits an infield fly (2-30)." (Editorial note: I interpret this as the batter is out when the infield fly is declared; not "hit".)

2-30: Infield Fly Rule: "Infield fly rule is, when ***declared*** by the umpire, a fair fly (not including a line drive or a attempted bunt) that can be caught by an infielder with ordinary effort....(Editorial note: This continues, but it's basic infield fly language.) ... If a declared infield fly becomes foul, it is treated as a foul ball, not an infield fly."

From this, I believe the batter-runner is retired as soon as the batted ball is judged as an infield fly. The umpire's manual instructs us to make this declaration at the peak of the ball's flight...e.g., in this case BEFORE the INT occurs. Thus, the INT is committed by a retired runner.

INT by a retired runner leads us to NFHS 8-6-16 (c): After being declared out or after scoring, a runner interferes with a defender's opportunity to make a play on another runner. (snipped) PENALTY: The ball is dead and the runner closest to home plate shall be declared out. Each other runner must return to the last base touched at the time of interference.


Here's where I honestly could go either way...DID F3 have a play on another runner? I don't have enough information from the video to determine that. I can definitely support the judgment of INT by the BR...and I think that by rule, she was a retired runner at the time of INT. Does this sitch also meet the requirement of another play? I don't know.

Edit posted elsewhere: This case play shows us a potential gap in the rules and the umpire manual that I have posted on another official's page: "When, EXACTLY, is the BR out on an infield fly?"

Is it when declared, as the book says? It it when the ball status is eventually determined? Is it some potentially retroactive combination of the two?

From my initial post: When is a BR retired by infield fly actually retired? As a constructive literalist, I posit that the BR is retired when the call is declared (by any umpire) per the book. Said call can be reversed if the ball status ends up foul. That's my interp, and using that: the BR was retired at the time of INT on the popup, and runner closest to home is out.

As I posted before: I would be happy to be proven wrong. (And I hope this play never happens to me before I get a solid cite/interp from higher up)

[robbie]

Originally Posted by teebob21

So after sleeping on this, and going to the book...I'm now not sure. I thought this was the right call (for the reasons and rules below), but as others have pointed out: can we get 2 outs for INT by a BR retired by an infield fly whose status is as yet undetermined????

Relevant cites: NFHS 8-2-9: The batter is out when "She hits an infield fly (2-30)." (Editorial note: I interpret this as the batter is out when the infield fly is declared; not "hit".)

2-30: Infield Fly Rule: "Infield fly rule is, when ***declared*** by the umpire, a fair fly (not including a line drive or a attempted bunt) that can be caught by an infielder with ordinary effort....(Editorial note: This continues, but it's basic infield fly language.) ... If a declared infield fly becomes foul, it is treated as a foul ball, not an infield fly."

From this, I believe the batter-runner is retired as soon as the batted ball is judged as an infield fly. The umpire's manual instructs us to make this declaration at the peak of the ball's flight...e.g., in this case BEFORE the INT occurs. Thus, the INT is committed by a retired runner.

INT by a retired runner leads us to NFHS 8-6-16 (c): After being declared out or after scoring, a runner interferes with a defender's opportunity to make a play on another runner. (snipped) PENALTY: The ball is dead and the runner closest to home plate shall be declared out. Each other runner must return to the last base touched at the time of interference.


Here's where I honestly could go either way...DID F3 have a play on another runner? I don't have enough information from the video to determine that. I can definitely support the judgment of INT by the BR...and I think that by rule, she was a retired runner at the time of INT. Does this sitch also meet the requirement of another play? I don't know.

In my opinion, you cannot use out "when declared."
As we all know, an IFF can be called after the fact. A non call does not make an IFF not an IFF. In such case, the BR may not be declared out until after the play and after an umpire conference.
Granted, poor umpire execution, but true none the less.

[teebob21]

Originally Posted by robbie

In my opinion, you cannot use out "when declared."
As we all know, an IFF can be called after the fact. A non call does not make an IFF not an IFF. In such case, the BR may not be declared out until after the play and after an umpire conference.
Granted, poor umpire execution, but true none the less.

True, but in the case of a botched infield fly (under NFHS rules) I still assert that she is out "when declared". The rule says she's out when she hits it, but we all know that's not the case in reality. If it were, this play wouldn't be worth mentioning as a case play....I don't think anyone here would support that the BR was out at the moment of bat-ball contact (a "hit"). That's just not how the game works.

It might be five minutes after the at-bat in your example, and a coach might be getting ejected, but she is still out only "when declared".

Edit: Also, for what it's worth, I'm glad I'm not the only one who uses the "IFF" terminology, despite Mike's (valid) question

[KCRC]

Originally Posted by robbie

Given a judgement of interference, they got the call right.
However, bad judgement........

This is the correct answer. F3 was looking up at the ball and, in my judgement, had no idea that BR was even there. Bad luck for the crew that poor judgment was made at this situation in the game. But given the judgment, they made the correct ruling.

[Tru_in_Blu]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

To start, WTF is an IFF?

IMO, there was no INT, F3 simply misplayed the ball while the retired player did exactly what she was supposed to do

Don't you mean "WTFF"?