infield fly and an interference

[okla21fan]

High School in Texas NFSHS (but ASA rule set if different would be great too)

R1 and 2nd, R2 on 1st with 1 one out. F6 is playing inside the base path. B3 hits a flair (not more than 12 to 15 high and a weak hit) fly ball to towards and past F6 who turns and runs back to field the flair. R1 breaks on contact and and ultimately collides with F6 (neither player saw the other nor there was intent, just classic DMR) BU calls INT on R1 at contact and kills the play. (R1 is 2nd out of inning)

here is the question for ruling:

1) PU has not called an IF prior to killing the ball for the INT by the BU.

2) PU did call IF prior to IF and BU killing the the play.

I saw this play, and questioned the normal effort to rule an IF, but since there was contact by R1, I could see why the 'bubble' of normal effort could increase. (ruling on the field was R1 was out for the INT, and B4 was out for the IF. 3 outs, inning over)

My question, Does INT negate an IF before the IF is actually called? (at the apex of the flight of the batted ball) Does an IF happen at the point of contact with the bat...(although usually not ruled till moments later)

I could not find a case play similar to this (2009 case book)

Thanks!

[AtlUmpSteve]

Case plays in both NFHS and ASA make it clear that an IFF can (and should) be called retroactively after a play if it is apparent one should have been called during the play. This isn't used to challenge the judgment of "normal effort", but to correct an error in rule application (didn't realize the rule was in effect).

With that as a standard, I would say that the IFF should/could be called in this case, too, whenever it is determined one should have been called (and until a succeeding pitch is thrown), be it before or after the actual interference. In the same vein, the time of announcing the interference or killing the play isn't a deciding factor; all awards and penalties are applied as of the time of the interference. If it was an IFF at that point, whether declared or not, it is an IFF.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by okla21fan

R1 and 2nd, R2 on 1st with 1 one out. F6 is playing inside the base path. B3 hits a flair (not more than 12 to 15 high and a weak hit) fly ball to towards and past F6 who turns and runs back to field the flair. R1 breaks on contact and and ultimately collides with F6 (neither player saw the other nor there was intent, just classic DMR) BU calls INT on R1 at contact and kills the play. (R1 is 2nd out of inning)

here is the question for ruling:

1) PU has not called an IF prior to killing the ball for the INT by the BU.

2) PU did call IF prior to IF and BU killing the the play.

I saw this play, and questioned the normal effort to rule an IF, but since there was contact by R1, I could see why the 'bubble' of normal effort could increase. (ruling on the field was R1 was out for the INT, and B4 was out for the IF. 3 outs, inning over)

My question, Does INT negate an IF before the IF is actually called? (at the apex of the flight of the batted ball) Does an IF happen at the point of contact with the bat...(although usually not ruled till moments later)

I could not find a case play similar to this (2009 case book)

Thanks!

Speaking ASA

Okay, this has been discussed plenty of times. IF has no bearing on any other rule except an intentional drop?

And as Steve noted, an IF is an IF even if effected after the fact.

However, as described, I cannot see how this could be ruled an IF since there was never any indication the fielder could catch the ball with ordinary effort.

[okla21fan]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Speaking ASA

Okay, this has been discussed plenty of times. IF has no bearing on any other rule except an intentional drop?

And as Steve noted, an IF is an IF even if effected after the fact.

However, as described, I cannot see how this could be ruled an IF since there was never any indication the fielder could catch the ball with ordinary effort.

I must confess... I did not search prior to posting.

my bad

[okla21fan]

And it was a 'tweaner' so to speak.

BU, didn't have IF....PU did.

If PU had IF and he had ordinary effort... that his judgment.

The main question was the timing of the ruling.

thanks for the help

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by okla21fan

And it was a 'tweaner' so to speak.

BU, didn't have IF....PU did.

If PU had IF and he had ordinary effort... that his judgment

I have always found that interesting. In most cases, the BU is in a much better position for that determination than the PU. I always look to my partner before declaring an IF fly as the PU. In turn, I will expect my partner to glance toward me if on the bases and I do everything I can to make his/her life easier on this call.

[clev1967]

Interesting in that in reality you are getting two outs on the same act. One out for the pop up the batter hit (IFF) and one for the same pop up that SS is heading for(INT) If indeed SS still had some ground to cover at the time of the INT and INT by rule is a dead ball I am not calling IFF and my defense is that at the time of the INT it could not be judged whether that ball was clearly catchable.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by clev1967

Interesting in that in reality you are getting two outs on the same act. One out for the pop up the batter hit (IFF) and one for the same pop up that SS is heading for(INT) If indeed SS still had some ground to cover at the time of the INT and INT by rule is a dead ball I am not calling IFF and my defense is that at the time of the INT it could not be judged whether that ball was clearly catchable.

In your OP, you stated R1 broke with the pitch. If this was a ball that could be caught with normal ease, R1 is well off the base, and liable to be doubled off. This isn't interference with the pop fly; batter is out on the IFF. This is interference with the opportunity to make the next play.

So, not two outs on the pop up. The two outs are different; if R1 stayed on the base, there would be no additional play, and no interference.

[okla21fan]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

I have always found that interesting. In most cases, the BU is in a much better position for that determination than the PU. I always look to my partner before declaring an IF fly as the PU. In turn, I will expect my partner to glance toward me if on the bases and I do everything I can to make his/her life easier on this call.

I too 'look' for some help from my BU as well. It is one of the items I go over with a partner in pre-game. The BU most of the time has a better depth perception of the flight of the ball imo.

[clev1967]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

In your OP, you stated R1 broke with the pitch. If this was a ball that could be caught with normal ease, R1 is well off the base, and liable to be doubled off. This isn't interference with the pop fly; batter is out on the IFF. This is interference with the opportunity to make the next play.

So, not two outs on the pop up. The two outs are different; if R1 stayed on the base, there would be no additional play, and no interference.

Steve- I agree with your interp but original post said broke on contact not broke on the pitch. Hard to say without seeing it how far off base runner was.

[okla21fan]

Originally Posted by clev1967

Steve- I agree with your interp but original post said broke on contact not broke on the pitch. Hard to say without seeing it how far off base runner was.

Just for clarification sake

int contact was about 12 to 15 feet off of 2nd base moving towards third (not very far, as the baserunner was not a speedster and was not 'breaking' on the pitch)

also, this play happened pretty quickly and at the time of INT, there was no verbal given on the IF. (but my understanding from Mike and a Steve is that the IF would have been in effect no matter when it was ruled by the PU)

I was not the PU (or BU) so my judgment for IF or not, is not relevant. It was ruled an IF and I was trying to get some clarification. (which was helpful)

[vcblue]

Steve. I must disagree based on OP. Out 2 is IFF. Out 3 is INT. If OP did not have IFF then Out2 INT Out 3 For INT on the next play.

[Az.Ump]

vc,

If no IFF then one out on int. and dead ball. Unless intentional DP break up.

Paul

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Az.Ump

Unless intentional DP break up.

Paul

Absolutley correct and a great segue to something that bothers me when I see it.

I am referring to the habit some umpires have into automatically taking a second out on an INT call when there was no possibility of a DP; Or it was obvious that it wasn't the intent of the runner to prevent another out being made.

[RadioBlue]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

So, not two outs on the pop up. The two outs are different; if R1 stayed on the base, there would be no additional play, and no interference.

Interesting point, Steve. However, since runners can advance at their own risk on an IFF, isn't the runner interferring with the pop up due to the fact that a misplayed pop allows the runner to advance without tagging?

Golly. I'm not even sure I understand that sentence. Hopefully you will.

My point is, there is a defensive advantage to fielding an IFF and if not allowed to do so, the interference would be on the pop-up as well as a subsequent play.