ASA Double Base - Purpose of 8.2.M.4.?

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by jimpiano

Greymule wrote:
No outs, R1 on 3B, R2 on 2B, R3 on 1B, B4 pops up near the 1B line and runs into F3 knocking the ball loose to prevent a double play. R1 has touched home plate before the collision.

a. Dead ball, B4 is out, R1, R2, and R3 must return to the base they had at the time of the pitch.
b. Dead ball, B4 is out, R2 is out, R3 is returned to 1B, R1 scores.
c. Dead ball, B4 is out, R1 is out, R2 is returned to 2B and R3 is returned to 1B.
d. Dead ball, B4 is out, R1 scores; R2 and R3 advance at their own risk.

The correct answer is "b".




I think the rule book covers that situation and makes the answer "none of the above".

With the bases loaded and less than two outs a pop fly on the infield is an infield fly and the batter is out when the umpire calls infield fly: Rule 8-2, i.

The scenario does not SAY IFR was called nor in effect and nothing about this scenario automatically makes IFR in effect.

[jimpiano]

Greymule wrote:The scenario does not SAY IFR was called nor in effect and nothing about this scenario automatically makes IFR in effect.



You can use the test question to make a point on the rule that would allow a team to benefit by interference.

However, the rule book also prevents that situation from happening under the circumstances outlined in the test question...which is important if the play actually happens.

The play in question is a clear case of invoking the infield fly rule. I already cited the rules covering the play.

The 2005-6 ASA Casebook also covers this:
Play 8.2 -36A .....(I)nterference after an out should not be called.

Failure to invoke the infield fly rule is correctable by declaring the batter out and returning all runners.

The test question was troublesome in that the scenario is pretty unlikely while ignoring other rules that cover the play and prevent a team from profiting from violating the rules.

Thanks for bringing it up, though. It is always helpful to research the rules.

[jimpiano]

Sorry, my previous post should have referred to the post by WADEINTOTHEM

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by jimpiano

Greymule (actually wadeintothem) wrote:The scenario does not SAY IFR was called nor in effect and nothing about this scenario automatically makes IFR in effect.



You can use the test question to make a point on the rule that would allow a team to benefit by interference.

However, the rule book also prevents that situation from happening under the circumstances outlined in the test question...which is important if the play actually happens.

The play in question is a clear case of invoking the infield fly rule. I already cited the rules covering the play.

Humor me and show me by rule that this scenario as described AUTOMATICALLY makes IFR in effect.

[jimpiano]

Originally Posted by wadeintothem

Humor me and show me by rule that this scenario as described AUTOMATICALLY makes IFR in effect.

Rule 1.
Infield Fly Rule:
A fair fly ball, not including a line drive or an attempted bunt which can be caught by an infielder, pitcher or catcher with ordinary effort when first and second, or first,second,and third bases are occupied with less than two outs.

Rule 8-2 BATTER-RUNNER is out
.....
(I) When an Infield Fly is DECLARED

Rule 8-7...The RUNNER is out

(P) when, after being declared out.......an offensive player interferes with a defensive player's opportunity to make a play on another runner.

EFFECT: ....the ball is dead,,,The runner closest to home plate at the time of the interference is out.

NOTE:....A runner continuing to run (may) be considered a form of interference.

Again, I am citing other rules in the ASA Rulebook which fully justify putting the runners back in the circumstances cited in the test question.

I am not disputing GREYMULE's wish for a better written rule regarding interference.

But in the unlikely event that this play would ever occur, there are exisiting rules that prevent the team from profiting from interference.

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by jimpiano

Rule 1.
Infield Fly Rule:
A fair fly ball, not including a line drive or an attempted bunt which can be caught by an infielder, pitcher or catcher with ordinary effort when first and second, or first,second,and third bases are occupied with less than two outs.

Forget about all that other stuff for now. Because I think you need to reread the definition until you understand it.

IFR is not automatic on infield popups with bases as described. EVER. NEVER. It's never automatic.

It is a Judgment call based on whether the umpire sees that the ball could be caught with ordinary effort.

If the scenario had stated "an infield pop up that could be caught with ordinary effort" - then you could bring IFR into the conversation, because that would have described a scenario involving IFR. It was not put there on purpose.

I honestly doubt this will help you, but that is the facts of proper application of IFR. You will continue to insist this is a clear IFR situation and rules prevent this scenario.. but you are more than incorrect.

[jimpiano]

Originally Posted by wadeintothem

Forget about all that other stuff for now. Because I think you need to reread the definition until you understand it.

IFR is not automatic on infield popups with bases as described. EVER. NEVER. It's never automatic.

It is a Judgment call based on whether the umpire sees that the ball could be caught with ordinary effort.

If the scenario had stated "an infield pop up that could be caught with ordinary effort" - then you could bring IFR into the conversation, because that would have described a scenario involving IFR. It was not put there on purpose.

I honestly doubt this will help you, but that is the facts of proper application of IFR. You will continue to insist this is a clear IFR situation and rules prevent this scenario.. but you are more than incorrect.

You seem to miss my point. Maybe I am not being clear.

The question as stated allows only one answer.

But if that play ever really happens any umpire would be justified by the rule book in denying any advancement by any runner.

The original premise of all of this was common sense versus the rule book.
In this case common sense AND the rule book are on the same page.

[greymule]

Remember, the answer from ASA was "b," not "None of the above. The proper ruling is to call the IFR and send everybody back. Ha Ha."

But the IFR is actually irrelevant here. Whether it's called or not, and whether it should have been called or not, the BR still interfered with a fielder attempting to field a batted ball. IFR simply makes the BR out. It does not affect ANYTHING else.

Incidentally, a runner continuing to run can be considered interference only if it is an obvious attempt to decoy the defense. The batter continuing to run after IFR is called or a runner who continues toward 3B after being forced out are not such cases.

But if that play ever really happens any umpire would be justified by the rule book in denying any advancement by any runner.

Then the answer should be "b," with a note that says, "However, the umpire should invoke 10-1-L, nullify the run, and send the runners back."

Incidentally, 10-1-L says, "The umpire will not penalize a team for any infraction of a rule when imposing the penalty would be an advantage to the offending team." This means that the umpire has two options: (1) impose the penalty according to the rules, or (2) not impose the penalty. It doesn't say that the umpire has to option to set things right as he sees fit. And in this case, option (2) is clearly impossible. How can the umpire ignore the deliberate collision?

[jimpiano]

GREYMULE

I am not disputing your call for a rewrite or an exeption to the rule.
I am not saying that the question, as written,should have another answer.

I am saying that the play as described can be resolved within the existing rules without letting a run score.

The rule by the way on interference after being declared out reads
A runner continuing to run and drawing a throw may be considered a form of interference,

In this case the batter is out when the umpire declares infield fly, and his continued running on the play you described would easily fit that interpretation.

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by jimpiano

Greymule wrote:The scenario does not SAY IFR was called nor in effect and nothing about this scenario automatically makes IFR in effect.



You can use the test question to make a point on the rule that would allow a team to benefit by interference.

However, the rule book also prevents that situation from happening under the circumstances outlined in the test question...which is important if the play actually happens.

The play in question is a clear case of invoking the infield fly rule. I already cited the rules covering the play.

The 2005-6 ASA Casebook also covers this:
Play 8.2 -36A .....(I)nterference after an out should not be called.

Failure to invoke the infield fly rule is correctable by declaring the batter out and returning all runners.

But that's a copout to avoid addressing the real issue ...

So to make you address the real issue, make this hit a bunt instead of a swing.

[greymule]

I disagree on 2 points:

1. I don't see how the run can be nullified within the rules.

2. If the IFR is called, everybody in the park knows the BR is out. His continuing to run toward 1B cannot ipso facto be interference. Now if he kept running to 2B and drew a throw, or turned 1B and danced around between 1B and 2B, that's something else. Nothing says that a runner who is put out must stop running or be called for interference.

So to make you address the real issue, make this hit a bunt instead of a swing.

Good point. Or make it a pop that F1 charges and dives for halfway up the 1B line. Or make it runners at 1B and 3B, or 2B and 3B. The IFR is a red herring here.

[jimpiano]

GREYMULE:

1. I don't see how the run can be nullified within the rules.

I do, and I explained them.

2. If the IFR is called, everybody in the park knows the BR is out. His continuing to run toward 1B cannot ipso facto be interference. Now if he kept running to 2B and drew a throw, or turned 1B and danced around between 1B and 2B, that's something else. Nothing says that a runner who is put out must stop running or be called for interference.


A batter//runner is out when the infield fly rule is DECLARED.
A runner who continues to run after being declared out may be considered to have committed intereference.
Both of these are stated in the rule book.
In the case sited, any batter runner who is out by rule can also be called for interference if he/she continues to run where a fielder is attempting to make a play.

[IRISHMAFIA]

"near the 1B line". IFR cannot be effected until the batted ball is fair, therefore the BR is NOT until that is determined.

There is no way R1 can be returned to 3B in this play. It's not a great ruling, but it is by the book.

[jimpiano]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

"near the 1B line". IFR cannot be effected until the batted ball is fair, therefore the BR is NOT until that is determined.

There is no way R1 can be returned to 3B in this play. It's not a great ruling, but it is by the book.

Not what the rule says.

And remember this was predicated on the rule book, not common sense.


Rule 8-2 Batter-Runner is out:

F. When the batter-runnner interferes with:....a fielder attempting to field a batter ball.

I When an infield fly is DECLARED.

In this case the batter/runner by continuing to run can be called for interference since the fielder is near the base line.

Whether the ball is fair or foul is immaterial to the penalty...Remember the case cited said interferernce to break up a double play:

If the ball is fair the already out batter was guilty of interference, by definition, when he continued to run after being declared out...and, if foul, would be guilty of interference by 8-2-f . In either case the umpire would be justifed in calling the runner nearest the plate out.


I think this is a good example of how answering a narrowly drawn question, while getting the correct answer, does not necessarily mean that, under the same circumstances in a real game, there would not be a reason to make another ruling.

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by jimpiano

Not what the rule says.

And remember this was predicated on the rule book, not common sense.


Rule 8-2 Batter-Runner is out:

F. When the batter-runnner interferes with:....a fielder attempting to field a batter ball.

I When an infield fly is DECLARED.

In this case the batter/runner by continuing to run can be called for interference since the fielder is near the base line.

Whether the ball is fair or foul is immaterial to the penalty...Remember the case cited said interferernce to break up a double play:

If the ball is fair the already out batter was guilty of interference, by definition, when he continued to run after being declared out...and, if foul, would be guilty of interference by 8-2-f . In either case the umpire would be justifed in calling the runner nearest the plate out.


I think this is a good example of how answering a narrowly drawn question, while getting the correct answer, does not necessarily mean that, under the same circumstances in a real game, there would not be a reason to make another ruling.

Stop avoiding the point of the issue. Drop IFR from your answer, as GM says, it's a red herring and distracting you from the real issue. Make whatever change you feel necessary to remove IFR from the equation and then answer it (call it a bunt, call it not catchable under ordinary effort ... but conceivably catchable enough that the obvious intentional interference comes into play, remove either R3 or R2 from the equation... whatever you need).

The point of this discussion is that it is possible for the offense to gain an advantage via intentional interference within the rulebook, and which way would you call it if presented with exactly that scenario.