fed ?

bluezebra58 · #1 (**permalink**) Sun Jan 21, 2007, 02:49pm

As i said in my last post, I've been unable to work the last few years, so i'm trying to get back to speed. This question is giving me trouble. It's a t/f. "R1 is on 2nd base and R2 is on 1st base with no outs when B3 hits an infield fly. The umpire properly calls and infield fly. The ball falls untouched to the ground and strikes B3 who is running in fair territory about 20 feet from 1st base. This is a double play." Thanks!

greymule · #2 (**permalink**) Sun Jan 21, 2007, 06:59pm

What code is this, and do they give the answer as it is a double-play, or is this just the statement you have to judge as T or F?

I think ASA has this as a case play, and it's just one out (the BR). Of course, if the ball hit a runner off the base, the runner would be out, too.

CecilOne · #3 (**permalink**) Mon Jan 22, 2007, 08:46am

Or, if it looked like R1 or R2 was a possible out and the interference was judged deliberate? ?

greymule · #4 (**permalink**) Mon Jan 22, 2007, 09:38am

Or, if it looked like R1 or R2 was a possible out and the interference was judged deliberate? ?

Yes, then definitely the runner closest to home out in ASA and Fed.

bluezebra58 · #5 (**permalink**) Mon Jan 22, 2007, 07:45pm

Yes its fed ball.This is the exact statement so they just want t/f as it reads.

AtlUmpSteve · #6 (**permalink**) Mon Jan 22, 2007, 08:50pm

Maybe I'm seeing something different than all of you, but it seems pretty straight forward, and "true" to me. Batter is out on the infield fly, and R2 is out on interference with a batted ball which has not passed (assumably) an infielder (F4) with an opportunity to make a play on that batted ball (remember, if R2 is about 20 feet from 1B, than one should be able to assume a high school age infielder can field that ball after it has hung in the air long enough to be judged an infield fly). R2 has no protection from interfering with an infield fly, caught or not; and apparently did. Two outs.

The ASA case play exception relates to a runner who stays on the base; that runner cannot be required to leave the base to put herself in jeopardy, when the fielder doesn't need to make play on the IFF; batter is already out. In this play, R2 has put herself in jeopardy by running; and cannot thenm interfere with the fielder's opportunity to get the 2nd out.

WestMichBlue · #7 (**permalink**) Mon Jan 22, 2007, 11:19pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

Maybe I'm seeing something different than all of you, but it seems pretty straight forward, and "true" to me. Batter is out on the infield fly, and R2 is out on interference with a batted ball which has not passed (assumably) an infielder (F4) with an opportunity to make a play on that batted ball (remember, if R2 is about 20 feet from 1B, than one should be able to assume a high school age infielder can field that ball after it has hung in the air long enough to be judged an infield fly). R2 has no protection from interfering with an infield fly, caught or not; and apparently did. Two outs.

I don't think you read the question correctly, Steve. B3 (as in batter) touched the ball while B3 is still 20' from 1B.

B3 is retired runner; interference must be intentional to be called. Nothing in question to indicate intent. Answer is false; one out (IFR); dead ball, runners stay at 1B and 2B.

Now - the question rises as to the exact time a batter is out on an IFR. Is it at time of the call? Or at the end of the play? Technically the umpires should have called "IFR, batter out IF FAIR." So is the batter out, and then you "uncall the out" if the ball rolls into foul territory uncaught? Or is she technically not out until the ball is declared fair?

My feeling is that calling the IFR removes the force, but batter is not out until the end of the play. Thus B3, being hit by the ball, stopped it from going foul. Therefore B3 is out for interference, dead ball, all runners return.

Take your pick, but I only have one out.

WMB

AtlUmpSteve · #8 (**permalink**) Mon Jan 22, 2007, 11:45pm

Oops. You are correct, I did misread the play. And, I agree now with your ruling; false, only one out. But, I have a differing rationale, which can end in a different twist.

Agreed the IFR out isn't recorded until all the necessary elements exist; and that requires the fair ball. When B3 contacts the ball in fair territory, that makes the ball fair by rule, and we do have interference, as the interference would supercede the IFR and make the dead ball we all agree we need to have. BUT, let me add that the current rule (which I have not seen in a 2007 rulebook) reportedly does NOT require "intent", rather it requires "actively".

In my mind, at least, this interference was, in fact "active"; but no other play was described as being interfered with. No description of other runners attempting to advance when this ball dropped. So, the BR only confirmed the out that the IFR would have created. In a way, the antithesis of a BR kicking a foul ball to keep it foul, this dummy contacted a fair ball to confirm their out. In a case where the runners were attempting to advance, this "active" interference could be properly considered a doubleplay, with the runner closest to home being out.

But, not this play, not as described.

CecilOne · #9 (**permalink**) Tue Jan 23, 2007, 03:55pm

My comment "if it looked like R1 or R2 was a possible out and the interference was judged deliberate" would mean one or both were advancing, not holding their bases. So, if it's a possible out by R1 or R2. would it be interference to prevent a DP?

Doesn't the rule say the batter is out when hitting an Infield(er) Fly, meaning at the moment it is struck? While I agree that does not make sense, for reasons like it has to be fair and the analogy to a non-IFR fly which must be caught; is that an issue?

In the example of whether F4 had time to catch the ball, isn't that implied by the IFR definition part about caught by an infielder?

AtlUmpSteve · #10 (**permalink**) Tue Jan 23, 2007, 04:06pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by CecilOne

My comment "if it looked like R1 or R2 was a possible out and the interference was judged deliberate" would mean one or both were advancing, not holding their bases. So, if it's a possible out by R1 or R2. would it be interference to prevent a DP?

Doesn't the rule say the batter is out when hitting an Infield(er) Fly, meaning at the moment it is struck? While I agree that does not make sense, for reasons like it has to be fair and the analogy to a non-IFR fly which must be caught; is that an issue?

In the example of whether F4 had time to catch the ball, isn't that implied by the IFR definition part about caught by an infielder?

IMO, 1) yes, that would be interference to prevent a DP, and in ASA, the act does not have to be deliberate; just the result of an act.

2) All the rules says x is out "when" or y is not out "when". That is grammar, not necessarily a definition of timing. Since IFR requires a judgment and a fair ball, as well as meeting a definition, I cannot buy that the batter is out at the moment of hitting the ball. Remember, it ain't nothing, until (or unless) we call it.

3) I'm not sure the ability to make a play on a ball which ultimately dropped (or allowed to drop) is necessarily the same as the initial judgment that a ball can (or should) be caught with normal effort. A late or bad break on a ball, which then hits with backspin and kicks farther away may not allow an infielder to make the subsequent play. Intentionally allowing a ball to drop has risks; and I certainly wouldn't reward the defense by then awarding another free out without feeling a subsequent play was fairly certain.

CecilOne · #11 (**permalink**) Tue Jan 23, 2007, 05:35pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

3) I'm not sure the ability to make a play on a ball which ultimately dropped (or allowed to drop) is necessarily the same as the initial judgment that a ball can (or should) be caught with normal effort. A late or bad break on a ball, which then hits with backspin and kicks farther away may not allow an infielder to make the subsequent play. Intentionally allowing a ball to drop has risks; and I certainly wouldn't reward the defense by then awarding another free out without feeling a subsequent play was fairly certain.

Good point, gotcha.

WestMichBlue · #12 (**permalink**) Wed Jan 24, 2007, 02:26am

Quote:

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

Agreed the IFR out isn't recorded until all the necessary elements exist; and that requires the fair ball. When B3 contacts the ball in fair territory, that makes the ball fair by rule, and we do have interference, as the interference would supercede the IFR and make the dead ball we all agree we need to have. BUT, let me add that the current rule (which I have not seen in a 2007 rulebook) reportedly does NOT require "intent", rather it requires "actively".

Not sure which rule you are discussing. If it is batter interference, that rule has not changed. 8-2.6 "batter-runner makes contact with a fair batted ball before reaching 1B."

Retired runner rule (8-6.18) also has not changed. It still requires intent.

Remember, this is FED, not ASA. FED rule changes follow ASA a year later. (FED rules are put to bed long before ASA publishes their changes.)