infield fly and an interference

[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.

[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.

[vcblue]

correct, and Irish I agree with your statement.

[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.