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

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

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

To question 1: At my first National, our UIC's posed this question. Many answers were put forth. On a ball near a foul line, we state "IF, if fair". That's the hint to the answer we were given. An that answer was: the batter is out once the status of the ball has been determined.

We would call the IF when the ball is at or close to its peak. But if the ball fell just to the right of the pitcher's circle while 3 fielders watched each other, it touched no fielder and bounded into foul territory before passing first base, all we have is a foul ball. (Which is why I simply call "Infield Fly!" or "Infield Fly, if Fair!" Then we have to wait to see if we have a fair ball or a foul ball, don't we?)

Personally, I'd have INT on the BR. If it was a fair ball, I'd also have the runner closest to home out. If it was a foul ball, I'd just have the BR out. I believe the BR hindered F3's attempt to catch the ball.

Question 2: Once there is an INT call, we have a dead ball. We cannot have "subsequent play". If it was a situation where infielders allowed the ball to hit the ground (intentionally or not) and while one of the defenders was run over by a runner trying to advance or return to her original base, I believe we'd have the BR out on IF and the runner out for INT on a defender making the initial play on a batted ball.

I've posted this scenario on this forum some time in the past. I presented it to KR at my very first NUS.

Bases loaded, less than 2 outs. The offense has this situation thought out in advance. Batter hits a towering pop up near the first base line. Runner from third immediately heads for home. BR runs towards first base. In this sequence: R1 crosses (touches) the plate; BR reaches out and intentionally swats the fair fly ball away from F3. KR's ruling was that BR is out on the IF, INT by a retired runner results in the runner closest to home at the time of the INT is out; since R1 scored prior to the INT, her run counts; R2 is declared out.

I've been waiting to see this play for years. Might never get to see it.

Don't you mean "WTFF"? :rolleyes:

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.

My question was regarding the infield fly being declared, and then the INT.

It was late, I was tired...I might not have posted the clearest question. :D

This doesn't seem consistent. If you follow what the UIC said then the BR was not out at the time of the interference. Call her out twice if you want and then make your moral conundrum about whether you can circle both 2 and 3 in the same single space in the book. But I don't see how you manage to call somebody else out on this play.

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

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.

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)

Ted, I'm late to the party on this hypothetical, but I think KR's ruling is accurate, if there are no outs. 2 outs and a run go in the book. If there was one out, that leaves the open question: Can a run score on a play where the third out of the inning is due to INT and the BR does not reach 1B safely?

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". :D

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 :)

That is an excellent question. I think you may be on to something there.

As I dwell on this a bit, I think you're right. With 1 out, and the BR not reaching safely, no run should score.

Question #9 on this year's USA Umpire Exam is a supporting argument.

It continues to be obvious that IFR is a mess in both USA and NFHS books; but in spite of the above comment, the player is out when it is hit.
More later ...

I still can't agree with that statement. When it is hit and reaches its zenith is when it should be called. A ball left to fall untouched that bounces into foul territory (before passing first or third) then has to un-call the batter being out.

I know NFHS has that wording in their rules book. Maybe it's there because nobody can figure out the proper way to describe how/when the batter runner should actually be called out?

I think the IF rule is clear enough until such time as INT and/or OBS enter into a situation. Then it gets a bit tougher to find/understand which rule(s) take precedence.

Had a know-it-all guy in a training session bring up an intentionally dropped ball in an IF situation. Still not sure about his argument, but most knowledgeable officials knew that the IF took precedence.

NFHS Rule 8-2-5
The batter-runner shall be called out when:
ART. 9 . . . She hits an infield fly. (2-30)


It may take the umpires a moment to recognize it, but this rule is fairly clear that she's out when she hit it.

Yeah I think that's CecilOne's point... the batter is out as soon as it's hit, but according to our mechanics, it's not declared until the proper time.

Thank you, Altor. I already acknowledged the wording in the rules book.

But she's not out when she hits it, and then it bounces untouched to foul territory.

I'm starting to agree with Cecil that the rule as written is a potential mess.

Let's stick with what's on video: In a high school game, a BR hit an infield fly, which in the future would become a fair ball. By strict reading of NFHS 2-30, the batter is out (retired) at this point and the ball remains live. This player, the BR, then interferes with F3 attempting to make a play on a batted ball. The penalty for retired runner interference is, as we all know, runner closest to home is out.

Now, let's go hypothetical: In an IF situation, BR hits a fly ball that is over foul territory when she interferes with F3 making a play. Dead ball, one out (the BR), and all runners return to base last touched at TOI, right?

Hypothetical #2: In an IF situation BR hits a fly ball which is not caught before hitting the ground and rolls/spins foul. BR interferes with F3's attempt to field this foul ground ball. Dead ball; foul ball; add a strike only if there are not already 2, right?

Then she didn't hit an infield fly.

Or in the NOTE:

When an infield fly is not initially called, the batter-runner is declared out if brought to the umpire's attention before the next pitch.

So the batter is out WHEN?

When she hit the infield fly. Again, just because the umpire didn't recognize it immediately, doesn't mean she wasn't out.

There's language ambiguity about when she hit an infield fly. If I say: when she hits a ball that becomes an infield fly; that is unambiguous. If I say: when a ball she hits meets the conditions for an infield fly; that is unambiguous. What the rule says can be read both ways.

Consider for example if I say she hit the dugout with a foul ball. Surely the moment she hit it was when it touched the dugout. Not quite parallel structure but still reasonably read that way.

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.

Nope. This is a perfect example.

Rule 8-5-1:
A runner must return to the last base legally occupied when:
ART. 1 . . . A batted ball is foul.

So, a high popup over the third base dugout. R1 crosses home plate before the ball hits the dugout. Since the batted ball didn't become foul until the moment it touched the dugout, you score that run?

IMO, it is an infield fly until it isn't, not the other way around

I think I would go a different direction on this. Batter is out when she hits an IFF. Then we had the INT. I think it is now a timing play, just like if the Batter had hit a fly ball that was caught. Batter is out but that is only the 2nd out. The next out on the interference becomes a timing play and runner who interfered is now the 3rd out (not the batter or batter/runner). If other runner already crossed the plate, I think we score the run.

Pretty tricky though.

Sorta, but . . .

You must remember what makes a batter out under the infield fly rule:
1. There must be less than 2 outs
2. must have runners on first and second, or bases loaded
3. The ball must be a fly ball (not a bunt or line drive), that can be caught with ordinary effort.
4. It must be a FAIR BALL.

Let's focus on point #4: what is a fair ball? In short, USA, NFHS and NCAA define a fair ball as a ball being touched over fair territory or settles on fair territory (I'm paraphrasing, as there are bounding ball, etc.).

Now let's go back to the play: bases loaded, less than two outs, BR hits a fly ball. As umpires, we state: "Infield Fly, batter is out . . . IF FAIR". Of course, we add the last two words if the ball is close to the line. That statement is a notice to the defense that we will apply the infield fly rule (and get this) when . . .the ball becomes FAIR. When the ball is in the air, the ball does not have fair/foul status, and thus, the BR is not out. When the ball is caught, it has fair status (actually, with the exception of a goofy U-trip slow pitch rule, a ball caught over fair or foul territory is still live). When the ball is touch over fair territory (not caught), it is fair. When the ball settles over fair territory, it is fair. If touched or settles over foul territory, it is foul.

If the BR interferes with F3 (or F2 or F1, or F9 :eek:) playing the batted ball, the ball is dead, no need for fair/foul status because . . .

The BR interfering with a fielder making a play is covered under another rule (USA 8 2 F 1 for example). With or without the infield fly rule conditions, this is the rule to apply. Boom, the BR is out, runners return to their bases. Case closed (dun dun), Dick Wolf executive producer.

In the video, with way it played out, there are two options:

1. you call the BR for interference: dead ball, all runners return to the last base touched. ONLY the BR out.
or
2. you do not call the BR for interference, but since the ball is fair, the BR is out for the infield fly rule, the ball is live and the run scores.

NOTE: I'm not arguing either way for interference. Personally, I don't think it was interference, ergo, my option is #2.

The play in the video, as the way it played out, has ZERO ways of getting two outs. It would require the BR to be out and interfere as a retired runner at the same time (would be that "Schrödinger Bat-ter"?). The previously mentioned KR ruling where the BR did something out of the customary play, like deliberately interfering to take advantage of another rule, could provide you with two outs, but that really is third world.

There are ways of getting two outs: the BR, after the ball settles over fair territory, runs into F3 while she is picking it up; or BR kicks the ball that has settled over fair territory; or, the BR didn't run thinking the ball would be caught, F3 fails to catch the ball, the BR starts to run to first and gets hit with F3's throw home to retire an advancing R1. Since the ball is fair, the BR has become retired under the infield fly rule effect, became a retired runner, and has now interfered in the scenarios I just mentioned. But that's not what happened in the video.

And read rule NFHS 2-30 "Infield fly", specifically . . "a fair ball" and then read what makes a ball fair NFHS 2-20.

That's why we say: "Infield fly, the batter is out, IF FAIR". The batter isn't out until the ball is fair by NFHS 2-20 or USA 1 - Fair ball.

If your logic is that the ball is not fair until the criteria of 2-20 are met, then your logic must also be that a ball is not foul until the criteria of 2-25 are met.

So, after reading 8-5-1, you must allow runners to keep any bases they reach during a high foul ball. Or a little spinner down the line where the runners have all advanced at least one base before the ball crossed the line from fair to foul before being picked up? That was the last base they legally occupied when the ball became foul, right?

The part I am having trouble with on this is the interference part. Can someone please post a reference to why this was called interference by the batter runner (retired batter). She certainly does continue to run to first base, but I don't see anything in her running to first base that interferes with F3's ability to catch the ball. I simply see F3 misplay the ball.

Looking back to the 2013 casebook, there is a comment about a runner continuing to run and drawing a throw may be considered interference. In this case I the runner continued to run, but does appear to do anything to physical interfere with the ability to catch the ball. The same comment is in the 2016 casebook.

A batted ball has no fair/foul status until it meets the definition of fair or foul. As to your NFHS 8 5 1 reference (and you should include which code you are citing), you are focused on "legally occupied". If you read part C, it overtly states "last based TOUCHED" for interference by a BR. This now differentiates "last base touched" from "legally occupied". Furthermore, read the effects of NFHS 8 5 1, notice the phrase about "intervening bases".

BTW, USA 8 6 uses the phrase "their base", and uses the phrase "last base touched" for BR interference.

My last point about fair/foul status: when a fly ball is hit in the outfield (say over fair territory) are you declaring it fair while in the air? In a pop fly where the catcher is tracking in foul territory, are you holding up your arms to indicate foul? Or your aforementioned little spinner down the line -- are you indicating fair prior to being touched, then changing your signal to foul once touched over foul territory? Of course, the answers to all these questions are: "No, I don't indicate fair or foul until one of the two definitions are met."

Easy, who ever made the decision was wrong, as who ever decided the outcome of this play (I believe the guy in blue jeans and the shoulder stripped navy jacket) was wrong.

My thanx to Big Slick for a compelling argument on this subject.

I initially thought this play could result in 2 outs. I no longer think that based on Slick's excellent citations.

I will stick to my opinion that I think the BR interfered w/ F3. That's a judgment call that an umpire has to make in short order before chaos breaks out.

I've had similar plays where the BR runs very close to the fielder, sometimes in an intimidating manner to make the fielder wary of a collision. When I can actually see the fielder flinch as the runner goes past, I know they were hindered. Whether they catch the ball or not, they were still interfered with.

Some folks continue to debate when the batter is out. I will call an IF when I'm supposed to, but the matter isn't really settled until the ball's status has been determined. And that's what I'll say about that.

Thanx to all for a lively and informative session.

Hey TB21, you made me think on this one, so I'm going to return the favor.

When I think too much, I need to go back to the book.

5.5.B
No run shall be scored if the third out of the inning is the result of:
1. A BR being called out prior to reaching first base or any other runner forced out due to the batter becoming a batter-runner.

In our TWP, (and assuming already 1 out) when the BR interferes, she becomes the second out. Umpire determines her INT was an attempt to prevent a double play. But the runner from third has already touched home prior to the INT, so the next runner closest to home is at second base.

Now do we score the run?

My entire point is that the umpire may not know or be able to determine whether it is fair or foul until the criteria are met. BUT, the batted ball always had that status from the time it hit the bat. It is fair/foul the moment it is hit, even if the umpires do not know which yet. Similarly, the IF is an IF the moment it is hit and the batter is out at that time, even if it takes the umpires a couple seconds to determine/realize it.

If you say it "has no fair/foul status" until it meets the definitions, then you have to read NFHS 8-5-1 as allowing runners to continue to advance until the ball "is foul." This is absurd. It was foul the moment it was hit, even if nobody knew it yet.

Sorry, I find this statement to be absurd.

Ever heard of or seen a hook or a slice? Ever done a game where the wind is gusting upwards of 40 mph or more? (And in that windy game, is ANY batted fly ball possible to catch with ordinary effort?) Ever had a spinning ground ball near a foul line where the coaches are yelling to the defender to "let it go foul" or "keep it foul"?

I'd have to guess "no".

Fair foul status
 

I guess I need to be included in the group which says the ball has no status fair / foul until is actually meets the definition of a fair ball or a foul ball by the rule book. We may come to an educated conclusion a ball will be fair or foul, but the ball has not actually attained that status until the ball meets that definition.

For example, we have the bases loaded, 2 outs and a 3-2 count. The runners are leaving hard towards the next base on the release of the pitch. The batter hits a popup with a lot of backspin on it that lands on the between first and the pitchers plate without being touched. Due to the spin the ball rolls backward and crosses the foul line and settles after the 3 base runners have all reached base and the batter runner has reached first base.

Everyone has attained a base from what they occupied at the time of the pitch, prior to the ball's status being determined. The ruling is still a foul ball and everyone goes back to the base occupied at the time of the pitch. Everyone may have assumed the status of the ball would be fair given it was hit into fair territory, but nothing actually made the status of the ball fair so the ball never attained the status of a fair ball.

Watching the video I think the first base ump did come in an was calling interference on the play. I think he was making the call live on the field but did not do so in a manner that would draw attention to himself as would be needed in a play such as this.

I think the additional person was the one who had to sort out what the penalties were in the given situation.

I do think, if the interference call was correct, the interference was done by a retired batter-runner and as such the applicable penalties were correctly applied.

My issue with the play is the calling of interference by the batter runner on this play, as I simply don't see that.

IMO, the status of the ball is determined simultaneously with anything which causes the play to be dead.

If they called the interference on the BR interfering with F3 catching the fly ball, you can only get one out. The BR is NOT retired until the ball achieved fair status, which would be when it plugged into the ground in fair territory. If BR was out on the interference, then dead ball, 1 out.

If she was not out by interfering with F3 catching the fly ball, then she was retired when the ball became fair, but by then, she was passed F3 and she did not interfere with F3 after that. That's the only way you are getting two outs, and they didn't happen.

Read my earlier post on the two options, either interference on BR, dead ball, she is out (1 out); or no BR interference, but BR out on infield fly, and runner is safe at home. And I don't care if BR interfered or not (again, I don't think she did), but either way, getting two outs on the play is wrong.

It will be interesting to see if we get any official interpretations out of this from NFHS (or any other ruling bodies).

Take a look at this. Seems there are a couple of plays that might shed a little light on this conversation.

https://www.teamusa.org/usa-softball...34F77D1AD&_z=z

Thanks Dave.

:D

My observations:
The second play (runner interference), why would we need the Infield fly rule, when 8 7 J F covers the runner interference on either a fair or foul ball (both Runner and BR are out). 8 7 J F precludes any necessity for ball status for USA Softball (other codes are different).

In the third play (batter-runner interference), this seems to be covered under 8 2 F 1. Again, ball status is not needed.

Using either rule in each scenario gives you have the same effect.

" . . . a batter is not out until the ball has been determined to be fair."

Amen!

TB21 - haven't heard if you've reconsidered this scenario. Thoughts?

Originally Posted by teebob21 View Post
Ted, I'm late to the party on this hypothetical, but I think KR's ruling is accurate, if there are no outs. 2 outs and a run go in the book. If there was one out, that leaves the open question: Can a run score on a play where the third out of the inning is due to INT and the BR does not reach 1B safely?


Hey TB21, you made me think on this one, so I'm going to return the favor.

When I think too much, I need to go back to the book.

5.5.B
No run shall be scored if the third out of the inning is the result of:
1. A BR being called out prior to reaching first base or any other runner forced out due to the batter becoming a batter-runner.

In our TWP, (and assuming already 1 out) when the BR interferes, she becomes the second out. Umpire determines her INT was an attempt to prevent a double play. But the runner from third has already touched home prior to the INT, so the next runner closest to home is at second base.

Now do we score the run?

Replying to Ted as a placeholder as I go on vacation tomorrow and will not be able to get in the book

It took me a while to find time to read and reread this, but now. This applies to the OP, not to any added plays and tangents.

1) There is no interference by the BR in the OP video. She was past the fielder before the fielder began to move to her right.

2) As unlikely as I am to disagree with Big Slick, even with the Dick West ref., I still believe the out occurs at contact with the bat.

A batted ball can become many things, fair, foul, caught, not caught, in play, out of play, etc. All of those are determined by the force, angle and spin given the ball by the bat; including reacting to wind conditions, rocks on the field, slopes on the field and anything else present.

The fair/foul and other analogies above reinforce this view.

3) If there had actually been INT by the retired BR, R1 would be ruled out.

#1 It may be your opinion the BR did not INT. "In MY judgment, BR did INT." To each his/her own interpretation.
#2 I think we now have "clarifications" on this. The out occurs once the ball status is determined despite the force, angle and spin given the ball by the bat; including reacting to wind conditions, rocks on the field, slopes on the field and anything else present.
#3 I think this is flat out incorrect. You may be confusing this with a runner on third base who interferes with a fielder attempting to catch a batted fly ball. USA Softball & NFHS differ slightly on this one. If the ball is fair and uncaught, both have batter out along w/ interfering runner. If the ball is foul, USA Softball has both out but NFHS has only runner out and if ball is not caught, a strike on the batter (with less than 2 strikes).

Sorry for the double post.

Not even sure how I did that.

Moderator can delete one of them if necessary.

OK, you don't agree and you would call INT, always a judgment.
That of course, would make #3 incorrect for you as it is based on INT after the BR is out as in my #2.

It all depends on the interpretation of the IFR and judgment of the BR-F3 action; and we disagree on both.

I am not confusing this with 2 outs on a fly ball; just R1 "closest to home" after an out by the retired BR; IF INT had been ruled and the IFR rule puts the BR out before the INT call.

You can delete your own post, in the edit function. :cool:

Please read the USA Softball clarifications, and you will see that you are incorrect in #2 (and I do appreciate the compliment, and that you liked my Law and Order reference).

More so, the clarifications explicitly stated that if the BR interferes with a fielder trying to catch a fly ball, only the BR is out:

Now, as for your #1 point, I also agree. In my judgement, and as the PU, I would not have interference. Therefore, I have R1 scoring and the game over.